I would just like to point out that a method I posted on Fri.Aug.
22, which for the time being I shall dub "Improved Generalised
Bucklin" ( the full "2-way" version), succeeds in many of the examples
(given in the "Query for one and all" thread)
of plain (Generalised) Bucklin failing
At 2:04 AM +0930 8/24/03, Chris Benham wrote:
I expect this to result in
fewer/less serious srategy problems, paying the relatively small
price of sometimes
electing the "wrong" member of the Smith set.
Why do you believe the middle preferences of a voter should matter
less then the highest or lo
In response to this example:
31: B>A>E>C>D
23: C>B>A>E>D
25: D>A>C>E>B
11: D>C>B>A>E
10: E>A>C>B>D
100 voters, the Smith set is ABC.
which in pairwise terms,boils down to (with the margins in brackets)
C>B 69-31 (38)
A>C 66-34 (32)
B>A 65-35 (30)
Eric Gorr wrote:
"Now, the defeat that could
(oops...needed to make an obvious correction and more observations)
At 3:05 AM +0930 8/23/03, Chris Benham wrote:
In reference to this example:
31: B>A>E>C>D
23: C>B>A>E>D
25: D>A>C>E>B
11: D>C>B>A>E
10: E>A>C>B>D
100 voters, the Smith set is ABC.
On Thursday,August 21, 2003 Eric Gorr wrote:
At 3:05 AM +0930 8/23/03, Chris Benham wrote:
In reference to this example:
31: B>A>E>C>D
23: C>B>A>E>D
25: D>A>C>E>B
11: D>C>B>A>E
10: E>A>C>B>D
100 voters, the Smith set is ABC.
On Thursday,August 21, 2003 Eric Gorr wrote:
"This example contains a simple cycle between ABC. It is clear that
I have recently spotted another blunder in the presentation of my
suggested new voting method. I wrote:
"A recent example from James Green-Armytage (Sun. 17-8-03).
46: A>B>C
44: B>C>A
05: C>A>B
05: C>B>A
According to James, his 44 BCA voters are insincerely order-reversing
(trying a Buria
