Russ Paielli Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:12 AM
As far as I know, STV is a generalization of IRV for multi-winner elections.
Or maybe IRV is special case, simplification of STV. (Which was the chicken
and which was the egg?)
So the reasons for IRV's popularity apply to STV to some
Russ Paielli wrote:
Eric Gorr eric-at-ericgorr.net |EMlist| wrote:
Russ Paielli wrote:
What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that
question, of course, but let me tell you what I think.
I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in
two or three sentences
Russ Paielli wrote:
What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that question,
of course, but let me tell you what I think.
I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in two
or three sentences understandable by persons of average intelligence.
Maybe that can
Eric Gorr eric-at-ericgorr.net |EMlist| wrote:
Russ Paielli wrote:
What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that
question, of course, but let me tell you what I think.
I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in
two or three sentences understandable by
Russ,
Ok, let me consider CDTT methods in this context.
--- Russ Paielli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is too complicated? Nobody knows the exact answer to that question,
of course, but let me tell you what I think.
I think you can forget about any method that cannot be explained in two
Kevin,
First, did I really write publicly acceptability in the title? I
always seem to manage to goof up something.
Kevin Venzke stepjak-at-yahoo.fr |EMlist| wrote:
Russ,
Ok, let me consider CDTT methods in this context.
--- Russ Paielli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is too complicated? Nobody
Russ,
--- Russ Paielli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin,
First, did I really write publicly acceptability in the title?
Yes. I just copied your mistake.
Suppose there are no majority-strength cycles. Those are supposed to be
rare, right? So say there are none.
Then CDTT,FPP can be
