Lowest Number

[donald at mich.com]

Mike wrote:

Mike: >First of all, with 3 candidates, you can have 6 preference orderings
>of those 3 candidates. Considering truncation, there are only
>9 possible rankings, not 15 (the figure you gave):
>
>A          B          C
>
>A          B          C
>B          A          A
>
>A          B          C
>C          C          B

Don: So far - so good - but you need more.

Mike:>
>Your last rows of rankings unnecessarily & meaninglessly
>rank a last choice.

Don: If the voters want to list all candidates, the voters should be
allowed to do so - kind of like a vote of confidence for the winner.

>***
>
>Realistic? Your examples where every possible ranking occurs
>frequently enough to be important in the election & in the example
>is most unrealistic.

Don: The mathematics of whatever method you are using should be able to
handle every possible ranking that may occur.


>
>To use my usual Presidential example, how many Dole voters would
>like Nader's policy proposals better than those of Republocrat Clinton?
>How many Republicans would consider Nader's policies closer to
>the Republican policies than those of Clinton.

Don: Are you calling Clinton a Republocrat? Your opinions of the current
election are showing - do not mix them with your examples - my point
stands.

Donald at New Democracy http://www.mich.com/~donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -