>
>To conclude that James' interpretation is most reasonable,
>I think one must take Mike's words out of context, since
>elsewhere Mike wrote that truncating a preference shall
>_not_ be considered falsely voting two candidates equal.
Yes, I assumed that Mike didn't intend it my way, but
Hi,
James G-A wrote:
> I suggest that ordinary winning votes methods (beatpath,
> ranked pairs, river, etc.) fails Mike Ossipoff's "strong
> defensive strategy criterion", according to what I think
> is the most reasonable interpretation of that criterion,
> whereas cardinal pairwise passes
Dear election methods fans,
I suggest that ordinary winning votes methods (beatpath, ranked pairs,
river, etc.) fails Mike Ossipoff's "strong defensive strategy criterion",
according to what I think is the most reasonable interpretation of that
criterion, whereas cardinal pairwise passes
