Russ says:
IIRC, I said SFC could be well-defined if it were based on a clearly
specified model of "true" voter preferences. But then it is only as good
as that model.
I comment:
I posted an explanation of why, for my criteria to be well-defined, it
doesn't matter if preference is well-defined, or
Markus--
I'd said:
I've used that term, but it has no role in defining my
criteria, and so It gives you no justification for your
claim that my criteria apply only to MinMax (whatever
MinMax means).
You say:
:
Well, you introduced your concept of "majority-rejected"
candidates in 1995 to motivate M
I agree with Russ that Kevin's Approval Runoff method (eliminate lowest
approval candidates until there is a CW) is a decent public proposal.
It would be interesting to compare that method with what I call TACF,
Total Approval Chain Filling:
Proceeding from the highest approval candidate to the
Ted,
Thanks for your thoughtful critique. I have been thinking along similar
lines for different reasons, mainly a desire to achieve IDPA.
Unfortunately, reverse TACC is not monotonic with respect to approval. If
the winner moves up to the top approval slot without also becoming the CW,
she w
James Green-Armytage wrote:
When exactly did Lindsay post this, and under what subject heading? I'll
reply on that list, when I find out.
Looks like I was partially mistaken. Jim Lindsay does post to the CA IRV
list (as does Sccott Menzies & Emily McPhail, to whom his was replying
directly, whic
Dear Mike,
you wrote (11 March 2005):
> I'd asked:
>
> But which of my criteria use the term "majority-rejected"?
>
> You replied:
>
> Did I say that one of your criteria uses the term "majority-
> rejected"?
>
> I reply:
>
> You said that my criteria apply only to MinMax because
> "majorilty-reje
