Steve Eppley suggested allowing voters to choose from published orderings and
then doing the tally by
... a good voting method, such as Maximize Affirmed Majorities (MAM).
Here's a suggestion for an easy-to-understand alternative to MAM that would be
adequate in this context:
In the case that
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 11:04:04 -0700 Simmons, Forest wrote:
Steve Eppley suggested allowing voters to choose from published orderings and
then doing the tally by
... a good voting method, such as Maximize Affirmed Majorities (MAM).
Here's a suggestion for an easy-to-understand alternative
Looking much like Condorcet. From there we know that cycles
can occur,
needing more thought here.
Only in the case of ties with respect to the pluralities that chose the
rankings involved. I think with more thoughht we'll find that the
tiebreaking method here corresponds to a
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 19:53:12 -0500 Paul Kislanko wrote:
Looking much like Condorcet. From there we know that cycles
can occur,
needing more thought here.
Only in the case of ties with respect to the pluralities that chose the
rankings involved. I think with more thoughht we'll find that
--- Simmons, Forest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that Eppley's suggestion (in its simplest forms) requires only a standard
plurality style ballot, and each voter marks only one alternative (a
candidate's
name or a code word for somebody else's published ordering).
This is exactly the
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:51:34 +1000 (EST) Anthony Duff wrote:
--- Simmons, Forest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that Eppley's suggestion (in its simplest forms) requires only a standard
plurality style ballot, and each voter marks only one alternative (a
candidate's
name or a code word for
