The critique now has a number of comments in the margin, from a number of
people, including responses from Rob Richie (probably the original author of
the report). At the bottom, I've added my critique of the pervasive error
Fairvote (Richie?) makes. Here is a copy of my critique:
Strategy in Appr
On 10/14/2011 6:02 PM, Eduard Hiebert wrote:
Richard, thanks for the exposure but please note, the correct link is
http://www.eduardhiebert.com/ereform/v123p.htm
Eduard
On 10/12/2011 5:25 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> ... then there could be website
> Pluralilty-strategy calculators, to advise
On 15.10.2011, at 23.24, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Another "Oops!". I've just realized that I posted my most recent message to
> the wrong
> thread. So now I'm posting it to the right thread:
> .
> Oops! I forgot that B voters ranked C.
> .
> Yes, C wins, even though C has a very low Plurality scor
> MMPO isn't usually defined as a Condorcet method, though it is very nearly
> one.
.
Ok, then, as usually defined, MMPO does what that example shows it doing. But,
with an initial CW search, it does very much like PC.
.
>From the criteria standpoint, MMPO was attractive because it satisfied wea
Another "Oops!". I've just realized that I posted my most recent message to the
wrong
thread. So now I'm posting it to the right thread:
.
Oops! I forgot that B voters ranked C.
.
Yes, C wins, even though C has a very low Plurality score.
.
But PC isn't intended to be Plurality. In fact, none o
Oops! I forgot that B voters ranked C.
.
Yes, C wins, even though C has a very low Plurality score.
.
But PC isn't intended to be Plurality. In fact, none of us want Plurality,
so why should we use it for the standard for evaluating propoed
replacemens for it? Plurality is not what we want.
