Forest,
--- Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I haven't had time to give these new 3-slot ideas too much thought yet,
but my first question is, Which of them satisfy the (weak) FBC?
MCA and 3-slot CR both satisfy the (weak) FBC, but do any of these newer
methods?
I put some
, and Forest,
--- Gervase Lam [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:50:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] three-slot methods
The voter places each candidate in one of three slots.
The ballots are counted
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 00:50:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] three-slot methods
The voter places each candidate in one of three slots.
The ballots are counted such that each voter gives a vote to every
candidate placed in either
Let's try your MAR method on the unreliable poll example that I consider
to be Approval's achilles heel:
First Table:
60 ABC
25 CBA
15 BCA
Second Table:
40 ABC
35 CBA
25 BCA
Let's suppose that the first table gives true preferences, and that the
second table gives the results of an unreliable
--- Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
However, among three slot methods MCA might be easier to sell.
I will gladly go with the one that is most acceptable to the public.
Forest
Here's an idea for a three-slot method which increases somewhat the strategic
distance (if that's a
