On 5/7/2012 11:10 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Yeah? How about this, then?:
27: A>B (they prefer A to B, and B to C)
24: B>A
49: C (indifferent between everyone other than C)
Cases that require carefully chosen numbers, as this example does,
become less important than patterns that occur over
On 8.5.2012, at 8.33, Richard Fobes wrote:
> As I've said on this forum before, some studies should be done to compare
> _how_ _often_ each method fails each criterion. Those numbers would be quite
> useful for comparing criteria in terms of importance. In the meantime, just
> a checkbox with
Subject: [EM] Rarity, FBC, Condorcet, comparison of criteria
On 5/7/2012 11:10 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Yeah? How about this, then?:
>
> 27: A>B (they prefer A to B, and B to C)
> 24: B>A
> 49: C (indifferent between everyone other than C)
Richard replies:
Cases t
>
>
> Mike, if you really want to elevate FBC above the Condorcet criterion, I
> suggest that you start by noticing that it is the only voting criterion in
> the Wikipedia comparison table that does not link to a Wikipedia article
> about the criterion (and such a link is also missing from the text
Mike O had written:
We often hear about how Condorcet, but not Approval, lets you help
Favorite against
Compromise.
I agree, but not with Mike O's many words. He offers one special case
- I will try to be general as to the ideas, but base my thoughts on
Plurality, Approval, and a sample Co
