On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Monkey Puzzle wrote:
Jobst, could you please clarify below?
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:56:06 -0800 (PST), Forest Simmons wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
By the way, here's a simple "procedural" version of the method, to be
used in meetings:
First, options may
Jobst, could you please clarify below?
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:56:06 -0800 (PST), Forest Simmons wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
> > By the way, here's a simple "procedural" version of the method, to be
> > used in meetings:
> > First, options may be suggested, and for ever
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
...
However, one could make a minor modification which would only seldom be
used: Determine P, and as long as all of P is beaten by a candidate
outside P, add the most approved such candidate to P. I will try to
prove its monotonicity...
That would be nice
Hi Forest!
> Before I read your post I proposed a Madison Avenue style name of
> "Majority Fair Chance."
That's OK but only when we use majority-strength defeats!
> It's not very scientific.
No problem, as long as we know what it is and can justify the name.
> Perhaps, "Fair Chance Democrati
