Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

Greg Nisbet wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: If you like Range, this may be to your advantage, since you could say that instead of there being only one Condorcet method that satisfies FBC, there a

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

Jobst Heitzig wrote: Dear Kristofer, you wrote: This is really a question of whether a candidate loved by 49% and considered kinda okay by 51% should win when compared to a candidate hated by the 49% and considered slightly better than the first by the 51%. A strict interpretation of the majo

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is called Cardinal Condorcet or something like that and is detailed > here: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm This is interesting. I am unsure why the voter has to submit both a ranked list and a ra

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

Hi Greg, --- En date de : Mer 15.10.08, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > On the topic of whether there is a method that > satisfies both > Condorcet and FBC. There is not. I believe I have demonstrated this in the past, by modifying a Woodall proof that shows Condorcet to be incompatib

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Nisbet wrote: > >> Reasons why Range is better and always will be. >> I would like to end the truce. >> I'll be generous to the Condorcet camp and assume they suggest something >> reasonable like RP, Schulz

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

Dear Kristofer, you wrote: This is really a question of whether a candidate loved by 49% and considered kinda okay by 51% should win when compared to a candidate hated by the 49% and considered slightly better than the first by the 51%. A strict interpretation of the majority criterion says th

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

Greg Nisbet wrote: Reasons why Range is better and always will be. I would like to end the truce. I'll be generous to the Condorcet camp and assume they suggest something reasonable like RP, Schulze or River. Property Related: favorite betrayal, participation and consistency. Implications:

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

Hello, --- En date de : Sam 11.10.08, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > De: Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Objet: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am > Gregory Nisbet) > À: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Date

Re: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

earning first-preference support (this can be true of both Range and Condorcet). Terry Bouricius - Original Message - From: Greg Nisbet To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 3:01 AM Subject: [EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who starte

[EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

Reasons why Range is better and always will be. I would like to end the truce. I'll be generous to the Condorcet camp and assume they suggest something reasonable like RP, Schulze or River. Property Related: favorite betrayal, participation and consistency. Implications: 1) It is always good to v