Hallo,
here is an interesting paper about the Borda method:
http://apseg.anu.edu.au/staff/pub_highlights/ReillyB_05.pdf
Markus Schulze
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Steve Eppley wrote:
> If James used the term Borda to refer to any scoring rule,
> which is a possible interpretation of his premise about
> "no matter how" the points are allocated to successive
> preferences, then his supposition is wrong. Plurality
> rule is a scoring ru
Hi,
Paul K wrote:
> James Gilmour wrote:
>> Steve E wrote:
>>-snip-
>>> But I accept Paul's point. There might be some decision,
>>> somewhere, where Borda would be a good voting method.
>>
>> No matter how you manipulate the points allocated to
>> successive preferences, it will, I think, alwa
James Gilmour wrote in response to Steve E in response to one of my points
> >
> > But I accept Paul's point. There might be some decision,
> > somewhere, where Borda would be a good voting method.
>
> No matter how you manipulate the points allocated to
> successive preferences, it will, I thi
Steve Eppley > Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 1:07 AM
>
> But I accept Paul's point. There might be some decision,
> somewhere, where Borda would be a good voting method.
No matter how you manipulate the points allocated to successive preferences, it
will, I think,
always be possible for the
Steve Eppley wrote:
Mike (R?) asked:
Here's a similar question: Does it matter if we use
a Borda count of 3-2-1-0 (Highest score wins) or 0-1-2-3
(lowest score wins)? I thought I read somewhere they
weren't necessarily symmetric, but I can't think of
any counterexamples so I might be mistaken.
Hi,
Paul K wrote, in part:
> James Gilmour wrote, in part:
>> But I agree with Steve's comment in his second message
>> of today. Why on earth would anyone want to discuss Borda?
>> It is fundamentally flawed and should be consigned to
>> the museum of electoral science, no matter what
>> Don
James Gilmour wrote, in part:
> But I agree with Steve's comment in his second message of
> today. Why on earth would anyone want to
> discuss Borda?. It is fundamentally flawed and should be
> consigned to the museum of electoral
> science, no matter what Don Saari may say.
As I have attemp
Mike >Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 6:56 PM
>
> Here's a similar question: Does it matter if we use a Borda count of
> 3-2-1-0 (Highest score wins) or 0-1-2-3 (lowest score wins)?
> I thought I read somewhere they weren't necessarily symmetric, but I
> can't think of
> any counterexamples
Hi,
Mike (R?) asked:
> Here's a similar question: Does it matter if we use
> a Borda count of 3-2-1-0 (Highest score wins) or 0-1-2-3
> (lowest score wins)? I thought I read somewhere they
> weren't necessarily symmetric, but I can't think of
> any counterexamples so I might be mistaken.
Again
Hi,
Stephane R wrote:
> To the possible exception of how one counts truncated ballots...
> If you assume all ballots are full rankings Steve is right.
> However, some treatments proposed on this list for truncated
> ballots could produce different winners in case of equal
> ranks or partial ranki
Here's a similar question: Does it matter if we use a Borda count of
3-2-1-0 (Highest score wins) or 0-1-2-3 (lowest score wins)? I thought I
read somewhere they weren't necessarily symmetric, but I can't think of
any counterexamples so I might be mistaken. I *do* think the lowest
score wins ve
To the possible exception of how one counts truncated ballots...
If you assume all ballots are full rankings Steve is right.
However, some treatments proposed on this list for
truncated ballots could produce different winners in case of equal ranks
or partial rankings...
I promote treatment of such
Hi,
Jure asked:
> Probably this has been discussed on the list before.
> unfortunately i cant find the answer:
>
> If Borda count in, let's say, 4-candidate election,
> uses sequence 4-3-2-1 or 3-2-1-0, does it make
> any difference?
No, the result will be the same. All the candidate totals
14 matches
Mail list logo
