Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part-
Example 1, truncation:
40: A[B=C]
20: B[A=C]
30: CB[A]
[90]
***
Example 2, order-reversal:
201: AC[B]
200: B[A=C]
100: CB[A]
[501]
[truncations added]
D- Who has a YES majority in either example ???
If the truncations are deemed half votes in pairings, then
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">If we want a business
analogy, then what I meant is that your product is inadequate.
No amount of marketing will improve an inadequate product. So it
isn't just that you aren't in the marketing department; it's that
you don't have anything any good to
I'm sorry--When I copied my truncation example from paper to e-mail,
I miscopied 41, and wrote 40 instead. So the example should look like
this:
41: A
20: B
30: CB
Mike Ossipoff
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
I'd said:
Proponents of other voting systems always say that pairwise-count
methods are strategy-ridden. I'm going to show some examples here,
to
show that they're right--when the method a Margins method.
Blake replied:
My problem with your analysis is that you decide that truncation is
the
After I sent my ballot to Rob LG, I decided that it didn't really
express my preferences as well as it could, and so I sent a 2nd one,
and it was accepted as a replacement for my 1st one.
If I can do that, it wouldn't be fair if you couldn't. I should have
mentioned this before the balloting.
Thanks for writing. There's been some discussion about method
combinations.
Though it wouldn't be a problem for the count computer, complication
is always a disadvantage for a public proposal. A combo has to
have 2 or 3 method definitions instead of one, plus the structure for
combining them.
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
Subject: [EM] Richard the diagram
I think it should be pointed out that distances from lines
drawn on a diagram is not something different from the
concerns of the voter-on-the-street, but merely a more
precise picture of it. Rather like the image, in an electron
