On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 21:28, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Consistency, like a number of other criteria, is relevant to how
> well a voting system reflects the electorate's wishes. Say a candidate
> wins in each district. If he wins in each district, there's a
> meaningful sense in which he can be called
Elisabeth Varin/Stephane Rouillon said:
> Alex,
> does any method satisfy strong FBC?
Good question. I know that Condorcet methods don't, and monotonic
majoritarian methods don't. Rated methods don't. If I could show that
majoritarian methods don't, irrespective of montonicity, I'd be
satisfied
Alex,
does any method satisfy strong FBC?
Stephane.
PS: Bart, you are right, yes consistency is relevant.
Sorry James, I missed the fact that the globally elected candidate was
not elected in any subset... Now how important is consistency in
comparison
to other criterias? I do not know. I only kn
Suppose we have an election method M that elects the CW when one exists
and uses some unspecified auxillary procedure when no CW exists.
I will argue that this method cannot satisfy the requirement that no voter
ever has an incentive to rank another candidate above or equal to his
favorite. By as
