Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>
> Chris quotes me:
>
> Pasting from Mike's web page :
> Beatpath Criterion (BC):
> BC is only applied to rank methods. Its purpose is as a test for
> compliance with SFC, GSFC, WDSC, & SDSC. Any rank method that meets BC
> meets those 4 criteria.
> BC:
> No one should
Are apportionment academics related to voting-system academics?
You have probably noticed a certain cluelessness about voting-system
academics. Ive been checking out some apportionment writing on the
Internet, and apparently academics who write about apportionment share that
cluelessness.
Mike,
Don't forget that even with honest voters, Borda suffers from clone
dependence in a major way.
Forest
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
I applaud this statement, though not agreeing with all of its details.
While we can learn by participating in polls, we need to remember that our
proper goal is assisting average voters in elections. By participating in
this group we become something other than average voters.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2
Anyone offering criteria should welcome criticism of them, without anger,
just as Ive been doing. But sometimes something that you werent expecting
takes you by surprise, and you lose your temper.
BC is a criterion, more than its Schulzes method dressed-up as a
criterion. Thats becaus
On Feb 15, 2007, at 23:29 , Kevin Venzke wrote:
> --- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>> Thus, we conclude, the Condorcet Criterion *must* be violated in some
>> elections by an optimal method, and thus this theoretical optimum
>> method must fail the criterion and others simila
