Mike ends his piece with a lovely bit criticising the agenda
of "academics" (he doesn't have to go "all academics suck!" to prompt
a response). I quoth-
> But I don't say that Craig's above-quoted attitude is original with
> him. Maybe Craig has just explained why the academics generally
> don't
I just _do not get_ what Craig means by any of this. Can anyone help
translate Craig's response?
PS. I suspect that an example of an "IFPP-like" method is one where-
-you work out the borda score of each candidate
-exclude the candidate with the lowest Borda score
-etc.
I know it has a name, bu
Dear Mike,
you wrote (9 Sep 2000):
> Markus wrote (9 Sep 2000):
> > You should drop SFC, GSFC, WDSC and SDSC.
> >
> > Consider the following two criteria:
> >
> > Criterion X: If a given candidate has the property Z, then he
> > must be elected.
> >
> > Criterion Y: If a given candidate has the p
Markus said:
(4) You should drop WDSC, SDSC and SARC. These criteria are not
intuitive. Even Steve Eppley who usually claims that he agrees
with you doesn't use these criteria. Even Steve Eppley prefers
Blake Cretney's terminology ("burying," "compromising," ...).
Wrong again. Steve has use
A voter votes A over B if he votes in a way so that it's possible to
find a configuration of the other people's votes with which, if we
delete from the ballots every candidate except for A & B, A wins if
we include that voter's ballot, and A doesn't win if we don't include
that voter's ballot.
A
>to my opinion, you should drop SFC, GSFC, WDSC, SDSC, FBC and SARC.
First, I appreciate opinions being expressed, including yours. I
mean that, because it's valuable to find out what others believe.
Markus probably didn't mean that I should drop those criteria. What
he must have meant is tha
Dear Mike,
to my opinion, you should drop SFC, GSFC, WDSC, SDSC, FBC and SARC.
(1) You should drop FBC and SARC. Condorcet methods don't meet FBC
or SARC. But in the website at http://home.pacbell.net/paielli/voting
you promote Condorcet methods and not Approval Voting. Therefore
there is no rea
