Damn, I should have read ahead...
Rob Brown wrote:
>
> Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
>
> > I find it amazing that the list thinks we should ignore voters' preferences
> > when defining an election method.
>
> Well, if you are going to respect all their preferences, even if those
> prefe
If you want to remove all ballot restrictions, you might as well allow
the voter to indicate all four options simultaneously. Or at least A>B
and B>A, which can easily be done on the same matrix. This is after all
just another cyclical preference.
Paul Kislanko wrote:
>
> Jobst's original sug
Rob wrote:
True, and you shouldn't be able to, because that is (in my opinion)
illogical and contradictory.
To which I reply "you are entitled to your opinion, but if you cannot prove
that all orderings of n-1 candidates by a single voter will be consistent
with the orderings of n candidates by T
Jobst's original suggestion was that voters be allowed to rank A and B
equally, A>B, B>A or neither A nor B. It was dismissed as unnecessary since
he could just create a ranked ballot from which his individual preferences
could be inferred.
That is not possible.
It wasn't about whether his choi
I agree with Rob.
All the different unusual pairwise preferences sets (disjoint, cyclic or containing
equal
preferences or any combinations) are a contribution to the election. It only
uses other votes to precise its linear ccomplete ranking equivalent.
Is that a good choice for a voter? Personnal
