Mike,
> Add top or Mono Add Top sounds like a Woodall re-naming of one of the
> criteria related to Participation. I call those "adverse results
> criteria". So far as I know, all rank methods other than Borda (and
> maybe a few of its close relatives) fail Particiption.
Mono-add-top is on a l
Warren--
You wrote:
MDDA fails "add top". That is, if you add some identical honest votes
ranking A top,
that can harm A (e.g. by creating a Condorcet winner [who is not A]
who then wins, whereas previously there was a Condorcet cycle and A was the
winner
on approval counts).
I reply:
MD
I specifically quoted your email where you said "my definition only applies
to my criterion".
You did not answer that question, instead you now claim that your definition
is in fact, universal.
Make up your mind, or at least stop trying to confuse me.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAI
Stephane.rouillon Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:45 PM
>
> I learned STV about three years ago.
I learned about STV more than 43 years ago, but I am still learning.
> At the time Hare quota appeared to me the most
> proportional quota and thus, in my humble opinion,
> the best quota.
>
> Now
Paul Kislanko says:
If your definition is not universally applicable, don't expect laymen to
accept it.
I reply:
What do you mean by universally applicable? My criteria and their supporting
definitions are universally applicable in the sense that they apply to all
methods.
The usefulness of
Hello,
--- Araucaria Araucana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Please use my public alias in web-visible correspondence.
>
> Kevin Venzke yahoo.fr> writes:
> >
> > http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Majority_Defeat_Disqualification_Approval
> >
> > I guess you didn't check to see that this pa
Please use my public alias in web-visible correspondence.
Kevin Venzke yahoo.fr> writes:
> http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Majority_Defeat_Disqualification_Approval
>
> I guess you didn't check to see that this page already has been written?
>
You're right, I did not. And the rules are q
