It's somewhat traditional for the inventor to name the invention. But I'm
open to suggestion.
There's a great Dr. Suess story in which Mrs. McCave had twenty-three sons
and named them all "Dave." It lists all of the names that she could have
used, ending, "... and one of them BuckBuckMcFate, but
HELP: Need some input for the Jargon Dictionary - Who is right, Forest or
myself?
Forest is proposing a "class of methods" (see below) in which the ballots
include both rankings, as we expect for Condorcet, AND ratings or grades,
as are used in some other methods.
I do not object to his offering
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
[...]
> All of this because I objected to Forest using "Condorcet" in a
> method name when the method involved ratings (he uses the word
> "grade" which seems to me to be a synonym for rating).
Well, let that be a lesson to you :|]
To clear up the misund
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 23:49:17 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
To anyone else reading, my claim is:
With the Condorcet method(s), the voter ranks all candidates
liked better than "last" (optionally including ranking "last").
I asked:
Is it necessary for a voter to rank ALL cand
> >Dave Ketchum wrote:
> >> To anyone else reading, my claim is:
> >>With the Condorcet method(s), the voter ranks all candidates
> >> liked better than "last" (optionally including ranking "last").
I asked:
> >Is it necessary for a voter to rank ALL candidates?
Eric replied:
> No.
I
At 11:37 PM +0100 6/9/04, James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
To anyone else reading, my claim is:
With the Condorcet method(s), the voter ranks all
candidates liked better than "last" (optionally including ranking "last").
Is it necessary for a voter to rank ALL candidates?
No.
Does
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> To anyone else reading, my claim is:
> With the Condorcet method(s), the voter ranks all
> candidates liked better than "last" (optionally including ranking "last").
Is it necessary for a voter to rank ALL candidates? Does it cease to be "a Condorcet
method" if
voter
We ain't communicating, so, ENOUGH!
To anyone else reading, my claim is:
With the Condorcet method(s), the voter ranks all candidates liked
better than "last" (optionally including ranking "last").
There is no other voter activity such as a rating or grading of
candidates - methods incl
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If I understand correctly, Beat Path, Ranked Pairs, MinMax,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:56:24 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote:
If I understand correctly, Beat Path, Ranked Pairs, MinMax, and all of the
other serious Condorcet methods are in agreement (except f
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> > If I understand correctly, Beat Path, Ranked Pairs, MinMax, and all of the
> > other serious Condorcet methods are in agreement (except for the
> > margins/wv debate) when there are only
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 14:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote:
If I understand correctly, Beat Path, Ranked Pairs, MinMax, and all of the
other serious Condorcet methods are in agreement (except for the
margins/wv debate) when there are only three candidates: if one of them
beats each of the others
If I understand correctly, Beat Path, Ranked Pairs, MinMax, and all of the
other serious Condorcet methods are in agreement (except for the
margins/wv debate) when there are only three candidates: if one of them
beats each of the others pairwise, then that candidate is the winner.
Otherwise, the cy
13 matches
Mail list logo
