[Demorep1] wrote (13 Jun 1998):
> If initial conditions change (i.e. by adding more
> voters with different rankings), then the results
> can be expected to change.
Markus Schulze wrote-
If it is not possible to create an election method,
that never rewards tactical voters, isn't it senseful
to
You wrote (13 Jun 1998):
> If initial conditions change (i.e. by adding more
> voters with different rankings), then the results
> can be expected to change.
If it is not possible to create an election method,
that never rewards tactical voters, isn't it senseful
to ask, whether there is at least
A supplement--
For "principle" fans- a Reverse Bucklin tiebreaker majority defeats.
It may not have clear that if a Reverse Bucklin majority eliminates a choice,
that the Condorcet head to head math would be looked at again to see if there
was a Condorcet winner.
Thus the "Bottom line" should b
Mr. Ossipoff wrote ---
It's true, as Demorep said, that if new voters join the election,
the rightful result may well be different from what it was before.
And the 1st choice of the new voters might rightffully lose.
Unfortunately, that means that those new voters have incentive
to falsify some
It's true, as Demorep said, that if new voters join the election,
the rightful result may well be different from what it was before.
And the 1st choice of the new voters might rightffully lose.
Unfortunately, that means that those new voters have incentive
to falsify some of their preferences--if
