How about "the smallest number of ballots on which some alternative
that beats A pairwise is ranked higher than A"?
Juho
On Dec 31, 2006, at 3:52 , Simmons, Forest wrote:
> Here's a version that is both clone proof and monotonic:
>
> The winner is the alternative A with the smallest number o
At 11:45 AM 12/31/2006, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: 31 December 2006 02:29
> > >
> > > How can you compare your irritation with mine?
> >
> > Perhaps we should use range voting? Then we could express the strengths
> >
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/message/2934
for counterexample (plus linear program explainign how I found the
counterexample)
wds
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Dear Forest Simmons,
you wrote (30 Dec 2006):
> Here's a version that is both clone proof and monotonic:
>
> The winner is the alternative A with the smallest number
> of ballots on which alternatives that beat A pairwise are
> ranked in first place. [shared first place slots are counted
> fracti
Simmons, Forest wrote:
Here's a version that is both clone proof and monotonic:
The winner is the alternative A with the smallest number of ballots on which
alternatives that beat A pairwise are ranked in first place. [shared first
place slots are counted fractionally]
That's it.
This met
--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: 31 December 2006 02:29
> >
> > How can you compare your irritation with mine?
>
> Perhaps we should use range voting? Then we could express the strengths
> of our respective irritations.
If you both email bal
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: 31 December 2006 02:29
>
> How can you compare your irritation with mine?
Perhaps we should use range voting? Then we could express the strengths
of our respective irritations.
With Best Wishes for a good New Year and for some effective reform of
voting syst
