Reason I choke on this thread is that this idea inflicts strategy on
Condorcet I have to warn my voters that ranking even a minor candidate in
front of me can get me discarded.
Condorcet should stay with voters ranking purely by desires.
Dave
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:55:21 -0400 Ken Taylor wrote
> At 10:30 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote:
> > > At 10:21 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote:
> >> >I'm dropping the weakest candidate, as defined by number of first
> >> >choice votes, which causes all their defeats of other candidates
> >> >to be dropped.
> >>
> >> What will you do whe
At 10:30 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote:
> At 10:21 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote:
>I'm dropping the weakest candidate, as defined by number of first
>choice votes, which causes all their defeats of other candidates
>to be dropped.
What will you do when two or more candidates are tied
> At 10:21 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote:
> >I'm dropping the weakest candidate, as defined by number of first
> >choice votes, which causes all their defeats of other candidates
> >to be dropped.
>
> What will you do when two or more candidates are tied for least first
> choice votes?
>
I'
At 10:21 AM -0400 4/27/04, Ken Taylor wrote:
I'm dropping the weakest candidate, as defined by number of first
choice votes, which causes all their defeats of other candidates
to be dropped.
What will you do when two or more candidates are tied for least first
choice votes?
Election-methods
> >The other day I thought of an interesting way to complete condorcet if
> >there's no CW. But it seems simple enough that I figure it must have been
> >proposed before.
>
> Yes, it has - or at least appears to be the same thing.
>
> See:
>
> Schwartz Sequential Dropping (SSD)
> http://electionm
