Well, my previous long post on a weakened consistency criterion kind of
blew up in my face. So, here's a list of assertions that didn't survive
the light of day. This won't make much sense if you haven't already
read that post, on the other hand I have trouble recommending you do so
at this
On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 19:05, Forest Simmons wrote:
Only in those cases where at least one of the subsets (of the CC
hypothesis) has no CW is (the conclusion of) the Consistency Criterion
violated.
But when one or more subsets is indecisive, i.e. does not give definite
support to any
Some Condorcet devotees disparage the Consistency Criterion only because
no Condorcet method can satisfy it. Others do not disparage it, but
reluctantly let go of it for the same reason.
But Condorcet (unlike IRV) methods are very close to the boundary of the
set of methods that do satisfy the
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
James--
You said that Consistency isn't relevant to the matter of who wins.
No, Consistency failure doesn't amount to a Supreme Court issue
about who the winner is.
But are you sure that it isn't relevant to anything of interest at
all?
Consistency, like a number of other criteria, is
