Mike is right; it should be called MaxMin instead of MinMax.
> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
> To:
> Subject: [EM] Chris: Forest's FBC/ABC method
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Chris--
>
> I'll describe Forest's proposal briefly:
>
> It's minmax margins (but it's
On 05 Dec 2011 12:46:41 -0800, Ted Stern wrote:
>
> The simplest PR system: open list Approval Transferable Vote.
>
> ATF for multiwinner elections:
Correction, ATV. Blame it on Monday ...
-- Ted
>
> Quota ("easy"): Q = (Nballots + 1)/(Nseats + 1)
>
> A voter may approve any number of candida
The simplest PR system: open list Approval Transferable Vote.
ATF for multiwinner elections:
Quota ("easy"): Q = (Nballots + 1)/(Nseats + 1)
A voter may approve any number of candidates.
Each ballot is initially weighted as 1.0.
Count weighted approval totals. At same time, count weighted
a
David said:
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change [two-party
dominated system in US]
[endquote]
How right David is: With IRV, two-party domination in the U.S. will always
be with us.
My subject-line didn't say everything it should have:
IRV is for when there's two-party
Chris--
I'll describe Forest's proposal briefly:
It's minmax margins (but it's defined as maxmin, with respect to x>y - y>x),
looking at all pairwise comparisons, rather than just at defeats.
But, instead of just x>y - y>x, it's x top or >y - y>x.
As I said in my other posting, it seems to
Mutual-Majority-Top (MMT):
A set of candidates who are each rated above bottom by each member of the
same majority of the voters is a "majority candidate set".
If there are one or more majority candidate sets, then the winner is the
most top-rated candidate who is in a majority candidate set.
I
