Eric Gorr wrote: >Ken Kuhlman wrote:>> The method proposed below, which I call "Correlated Instant>> Borda Runoff," is basically a tweak of Baldwin to solve the clone problem.
>There seems to be a problem with a case where a high-correlation would >exist, but there are not actual clones...i.e. y
Ken Kuhlman wrote:
The method proposed below, which I call "Correlated Instant
Borda Runoff," is basically a tweak of Baldwin to solve the clone problem.
There seems to be a problem with a case where a high-correlation would
exist, but there are not actual clones...i.e. your method may unfair
I've recently become interested in election methods, and have noticed
that while the Borda count has been shown to have many desirable
properties, it is customarily dismissed because of its susceptibility
to clones. The method proposed below, which I call
"Correlated Instant Borda Runoff," is ba
Russ,
--- Russ Paielli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> Kevin,
>
> MMPO sounds interesting -- even though it fails the Condorcet criterion.
I consider that particular failing to be minor. The SDSC failure with 4+
candidates is what alarms me, and what led me to suggest using CDTT methods.
> I not
Hi Forest,
--- "Simmons, Forest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Kevin, thanks for supplying the details of MMPO's FBC compliance.
>
> I never doubted it since I suggested it back in March 2003, inspired by your
> "median winner"
> method for two slot ballots.
Hmm, interesting. Since understan
Russ Paielli 6049awj02-at-sneakemail.com |EMlist| wrote:
Kevin,
MMPO sounds interesting -- even though it fails the Condorcet criterion.
I note that it selects the candidate with the minimum of the maximum
pairwise votes against. Just out of curiousity, have you (or anyone
else, as far as you
