The family of "regular" probabilistic (stochastic) electoralsystems

[David Catchpole]

Ja, vat ist das problem? Obviously, A's removal will _increase_  B's
probability of winning to unity. Regularity is cool with this- it would
rather be offended if the reverse occured. Note the use of corresponding
brackets for (removal) and (decrease). This saves me "respectively"
bullshit or (i) and (ii) bullshit and should be basically understandable
to anyone.

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Craig Carey wrote:

> 
> 
> Yes!. consider, if you will, the removal of candidate A from
> 
> 1 A
> 1 B
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 17:51 09.12.99 , DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >s349436 at student.uq.edu.au wrote in part--
> >
> >Okay- "Regularity" is the name used earlier by Albert Langer (Craig might
> >recognise the name ;) ) to describe the probabilistic analogue of IIA. It
> >goes like this-
> >
> >The addition (removal) of a candidate does not, for any other candidate, 
> >increase (decrease) the probability of that other candidate winning.
> >---
> >D-
> >A simple example-
> >
> >2 A>B>C
> >1 C>B>A
> >
> >Guess what happens if candidates are added or removed.
> >See the earlier postings regarding clones and circular ties.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr G. A. Craig Carey, research at ijs.co.nz
> Auckland, New Zealand.
> Snooz Metasearch: <http://www.ijs.co.nz/info/snooz.htm>
> 
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------
Nothing is foolproof given a talented fool.