At 10:07 PM -0400 8/20/06, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>Maybe time to start over, unless someone can find something decent
>written down!
>
>We are talking of ranked choice, such as IRV does.
Right, or any other ranked method.
>Normally possible to rank every candidate. Restrictions tolerable,
>but MU
What are you trying to say???
Your lonely sentence is true, but I do not see why you say it.
DWK
Paul Kislanko wrote:
> Sentences should have subjects and predicates.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Ketchum
> Sent: Sunday, A
Sentences should have subjects and predicates.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Ketchum
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:08 PM
To: Jonathan Lundell
Cc: election-methods@electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] simpler proof of "no conflict theor
Maybe time to start over, unless someone can find something decent written
down!
We are talking of ranked choice, such as IRV does.
Normally possible to rank every candidate. Restrictions tolerable, but
MUST be able to rank at least best and second.
Equal ranks permitted, when the voter sees
At 4:58 PM -0700 8/16/06, David Cary wrote:
>Without knowing the exact wording of the criterion, it can be very
>difficult to judge whether or not an election method meets the
>criterion, or whether the criterion makes sense or contains
>ambiguities.
>
>As stated on Wikipedia (
>http://en.wikipedi
