Mike wrote:
By the way, how would you write FBC as a votes-only criterion?
If you do that, then I'll have to admit that you beat me to it.
It's not 100% correct (it needs to be tweaked to work with methods
that allow first-place tied rankings), but:
Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No one's alternatives to FBC have resembled mine, and I think my weak
version is wrong, but I don't see what's wrong with my strong version.
Any comments from anyone? Did I leave a loophole of some kind?
Keeping in mind that this criterion is supposed to be
Stephen wrote:
The
first poll should
be conducted in order to identify the best single-winner method in our
eyes...
I reply:
No need to pick a method first, because we don't need one winner. Nothing
wrong with getting different winners by using different methods. In fact,
that's better,
Hallo,
I propose the following defensive strategy criteria.
Criterion 1:
Suppose Q1 is the number of voters who strictly
prefer at least one candidate to candidate A.
Suppose Q2 is the number of voters who strictly
prefer candidate A to candidate B.
Suppose Q1 Q2.
Then
No one's alternatives to FBC have resembled mine, and I think my weak
version is wrong, but I don't see what's wrong with my strong version.
Any comments from anyone? Did I leave a loophole of some kind?
Keeping in mind that this criterion is supposed to be unattainable:
--- Kevin Venzke
I'd like to nominate the voting systems
Schulze's beatpath method (margins)
Ballot-by-ballot approval DSV with strategy A
and the presidential candidates
Michael Badnarik (http://www.badnarik.org/)
Gary Nolan (http://www.garynolan.com/)
Aaron Russo (http://www.russoforpresident.com/)
Blake
