September 27, 2005 5:16 PM
> To: election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] Re: Bucklin
>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:45:11 -0500
> > From: "Paul Kislanko"
> > Subject: [EM] RE: Bucklin
>
> > I still don't see why A+=B>others is
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:45:11 -0500
> From: "Paul Kislanko"
> Subject: [EM] RE: Bucklin
> I still don't see why A+=B>others is any different from A>B>others.
OK. Another way to describe A+=B>others is A>B>>others, which is not
quite the same
Title: Election-methods Digest, Vol 15, Issue 50
I still don't see why A+=B>others is any different
from A>B>others.
I'm sorry, but A+=B is the same as A>B and A=B+ is
the same as B>A. If a method uses the "+" to break ties it is only because it
is a flawed method.
From: Simmons,
Title: Election-methods Digest, Vol 15, Issue 50
Someone wrote:
I think the "+" to show "I like B better than A even though
I ranked A=B" disingenuous and unnecessary. If you prefer one of the equally
ranked alterntatives more than the other, just don't rank them equally.
Forest Answers
Forest,
--- "Simmons, Forest " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I like the modified ER Bucklin Whole version that Kevin and Mike have been
> considering.
I want to say: Although it's interesting that ERBW satisfies FBC and Majority,
I think it differentiates among adjacent ranks so little that st
I like the modified ER Bucklin Whole version that Kevin and Mike have been
considering.
I have two suggestions that might make it more viable as a public proposal:
1. Keep the number of possible distinct ranks down to seven or eight, for
ballot simplicity.
2. Allow a special mark "+" to b
Kevin--
Yes, I prefer the ERBucklin(whole) that you described. I'd always assumed
that a candidate 2nd place would get a vote in the 2nd round. But I prefer
the verson that you described. How about this wording:
ERBucklin(whole):
Voters rank the candidates. Equal rankings and truncation are
Previously, on Friday, August 8, 2003 I posted a suggested
ranked-ballot PR method that combines Generalized Bucklin and Condorcet.
It wrongly included: "Equal preferences are divided into equal fractions
(which sum to 1)". I now think it is fine if equal preference for A and
B are counted Ap
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:57:33 +0930 Chris Benham wrote in part:
Previously, on Friday, August 8, 2003 I posted a suggested
ranked-ballot PR method that combines Generalized Bucklin and
Condorcet. It wrongly included: "Equal preferences are divided into
equal fractions (whi
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:57:33 +0930 Chris Benham wrote in part:
Previously, on Friday, August 8, 2003 I posted a suggested
ranked-ballot PR method that combines Generalized Bucklin and Condorcet.
It wrongly included: "Equal preferences are divided into equal fractions
(which sum to 1)". I now
Alex,
--- Alex Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Your mention of the relationship between MCA and Bucklin brings to mind a
> question:
>
> Does anybody on the list know how widespread Bucklin was in the US? I've
> seen little blurbs when googling for Bucklin, but mostly it's "tried in
> th
11 matches
Mail list logo
