At 03\03\10 14:13 +0100 Monday, Markus Schulze wrote:
>Dear Craig,
>
>you wrote (10 March 2003):
>> To Mr Schulze: did you find out why Mr Dummett had such a
>> weak rule ?. That rule had a Floor(x) function on it, reducing
...
>
>Let's say that V > 0 is the number of voters, S > 0 is the number
>o
On 10 Mar 2003 at 11:36, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> My recent "MinMax" message concluded with a
> half-hearted attempt at a system combining Approval
> and Condorcet. I have a much better proposal now,
> although I'm not entirely certain of its merits.
-snip-
I have another way of combining Approval a
On 10 Mar 2003 at 12:27, Markus Schulze wrote:
-snip-
> However, according to Steve Eppley, there is a merit
> difference. Steve, who uses the term "MAM" for Ranked Pairs
It is more reasonable to use the term MAM as a variation of
Ranked Pairs than as a synonym for Ranked Pairs. MAM is
monotoni
I now allow entries of the form:
10:a>b=c>d
Which I interpret to mean that 10 people liked a the most, believed
that b & c were equivalent and disliked d the most.
As always, please write me with any comments, questions or if you
spot any errors.
The URL for the site is:
http://www.ericgor
Markus Schulze wrote:
> Steve Eppley wrote:
>> That's why I think the best method is a variation of Ranked Pairs
>> which I call Maximize Affirmed Majorities, or MAM.
>
> In so far as you have always considered Mike Ossipoff to be
> authoritative, I would like to know what you think about the
> fa
Dear Craig,
you wrote (10 March 2003):
> To Mr Schulze: did you find out why Mr Dummett had such a
> weak rule ?. That rule had a Floor(x) function on it, reducing
> the number of candidates that it said had to win. It seemed
> something that did not look desirable, and it seemed to be
> too dista
Dear Mike,
you wrote (9 March 2003):
> I'd propose RP as a public proposal, due to its briefer
> definition. And I'd offer BeatpathWinner to organizations
> & committees, due to its elegantly simple & brief algorithm
> & computer program. I promote BeatpathWinner/CSSD & RP.
> BeatpathWinner/CSSD t
My recent "MinMax" message concluded with a
half-hearted attempt at a system combining Approval
and Condorcet. I have a much better proposal now,
although I'm not entirely certain of its merits. I'll
continue to think about it, although I have some
interesting implications already.
The voter ran
For the record, I do not claim to have a definition of
FBC. At most, I wanted to discuss it in practical
terms. It doesn't seem possible, though, because
Craig Carey will not admit "voters" to a scenario.
--- Craig Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > At
03\03\09 20:53 +0100 Sunday, Kevin Venz
At 03\03\09 20:53 +0100 Sunday, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>Looking at Schulze's example of:
...
>
>Approval for a candidate is calculated as the number
>of ballots on which he is not ranked last. (Ties are
...
"last" (?). That may be an entirely different "Approval"
word.
-
At 03\03
Hi everyone,
I've just rolled out a new discussion board on Electorama.com, which
allows for posting of stories and discussion of those stories (similar
to Slashdot, Kuro5hin, and other weblog type sites). The idea behind
this site is to complement the election-methods list by providing a
low
11 matches
Mail list logo
