Kevin wrote:
>It is Smith-efficient. When you eliminate just one candidate at a time,
>it's not possible to eliminate all Smith members without turning one of
>them into a CW in the process.
Whoops. Sincerely sorry about that. My other reasons still apply,
though.
Especially reason (3),
James,
--- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
Russ wrote:
> >The voters rank the candidates and also specify an Approval cutoff. The
> >CW wins if one exists, otherwise the least approved candidate is
> >repeatedly eliminated until a CW is obtained.
> 2. It is not Smith-effici
Note that, while I formally respond to Russ, I also base this on James
Green-Armytage words at Tue, 08 Mar 2005 02:31:46 -0500
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:36:07 -0800 Russ Paielli wrote:
Folks,
I realize that this email list is intended for a wide-ranging technical
discussion of election methods, and
Hi Russ,
It's good to see you so engaged in the list of late. I regret that I
haven't been participating much in the last few months.
>Let me just
>suggest, however, that it would be useful to distinguish between
>election methods that could be publicly acceptable within our lifetimes
>
Folks,
I realize that this email list is intended for a wide-ranging technical
discussion of election methods, and far be it from me to try to
discourage "brainstorming" for innovative new ideas. Let me just
suggest, however, that it would be useful to distinguish between
election methods that
