Kristofer:
On 05/11/2012 11:31 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Of course the way to define u/a for criteria would be in terms of votes.
> A definition of u/a for criteria:
> In a critrerion failure-example, an election is u/a for some
> particular voter V iff:
> The candidates can be divided i
Juho:
Would the governments be minority governments or coalition governments?
[endquote]
They'd be popular governments. If it consisted of only one party, I don't
know if it would be the favorite of more than half of the voters. My guess
is that it usually will.
But yes, there could be several
This started as a thread to talk a bit about Condorcet.
That has faded away, and all I see is trivia about Plurality vs
Approval - too trivial a difference between them to support enough
thoughts to be worth writing this much, even less for reading.
DWK
On May 18, 2012, at 9:56 PM, Michael
> How could using Approval instead of Plurality in our single-member
> districts be bad? I've talked about how Approval's results would
> differ from those of Plurality.
Proportional representation and two-party systems are two well known
approaches. Approval with single winner districts is a ne
On 05/11/2012 11:31 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Of course the way to define u/a for criteria would be in terms of votes.
A definition of u/a for criteria:
In a critrerion failure-example, an election is u/a for some particular
voter V iff:
The candidates can be divided into two sets, A and
