Re: [EM] Definitions?

> >Would someone post definitions of the uncovered set and the minimal >dominant >set? Or links to the definitions? I was probably away from the list when >those sets were defined on EM. > Dominant set: A set of candidates such that every candidate inside the set pairwise-beats every ca

[EM] Re: sprucing up

Dan, Thanks for your interest. "Sprucing Up" is still in a state of evolution. Originally it meant restricting to the Uncovered Set, then collapsing any "beat clones" that might remain, then (recursively) applying the method being spruced up to the collapsed clone sets until an actual candidate

Re: [EM] Definitions?

Dear Mike, you wrote (15 Feb 2005): > Would someone post definitions of the uncovered set and > the minimal dominant set? Or links to the definitions? > I was probably away from the list when those sets were > defined on EM. Usually, the uncovered set is defined only for situations without pairwi

[EM] more on lotteries

I'm still intrigued by the idea of electing lotteries for choosing candidates. Here's an example of where they might come in useful: Suppose that "true" preferences are 45 A>>C>B 30 B>C>A 25 C>A>B. Then C is the Condorcet Winner, but the A faction, not liking C all that much, has an incentive t

[EM] Approval with 2 ballotings

Gervase proposed changing the quota to more than fifty percent based on the number of candidates. Could this give some party an incentive to field dummy candidates just to drive up the quota? Forest From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [EM] Approval with 2 ballotings To: [EMAIL PR

Re: [EM] How to break this tie?

From: Markus Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [EM] How to break this tie? Dear Chris, here is an example to illustrate my reservations about the uncovered set. Suppose the defeats are (sorted according to their strengths in a decreasing order): D > A A > B B > C C > A C > D B > D The

Re: [EM] Clock Methods

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 01:46:38 + From: Gervase Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A . A>C>B . .[4] A>B>C Not(B) . . Not(C) C>A>B [2].. B>A>C C . . B C>B>A . .[3] B>C>A .

[EM] Wording of March strategy definition

I posted: 1. The choice of a way of voting to affect the outcome in a certain way under certain specified conditions, when there isn't one obvious way of voting that will always accomplish that under those conditions. I comment: Someone could ask me what I mean by "obvious", and I´d have to say "Le

[EM] Two strategy definitions from March ´04

In my definition of defensive strategy, I use the word "strategy". I haven't defined strategy. There are 2 definitions of strategy that I've used in the names of the majority defensive strategy criteria. Though it's al

[EM] Definitions?

Would someone post definitions of the uncovered set and the minimal dominant set? Or links to the definitions? I was probably away from the list when those sets were defined on EM. Mike Ossipoff _ Don’t just search. Find. Check out