At 11:47 AM -0700 8/31/03, Bart Ingles wrote:
You could say that "B is obviously preferred by *majorities* of people
over every other option, but even so the "majorities" are merely
incidental. B would be the CW without them:
40: A
10: C>B
20: C
35: B>A
Here B is preferred by *pluralities* of peop
Eric Gorr wrote:
>
> At 11:49 PM -0700 8/20/03, Bart Ingles wrote:
> >Why should it be considered important to find a majority when none
> >exists? In my view, the very concept of 'majority' is meaningless when
> >there are three or more candidates, and appears to be based on several
> >logical
Dave Ketchum wrote in part:
>In public elections we need to have the voters understanding the method
>well enough to vote intelligently, and to be able to accept declared
>winners as appropriate to the vote count totals (which I claim should be
>public knowledge shortly after the polls close). Not
I notice that all of the application that you mention, whether public or
private, seem to assume human candidates and human voters.
Candidate Proxy is sufficient for most such cases, but part of Candidate
Proxy is the Completion Method, which could be a relatively sophisticated
method.
Some of us
