[EM] condorcet loser elimination PR

Adam Tarr atarr at purdue.edu
Tue Jul 22 19:24:03 PDT 2003

David Gamble wrote:

>27 A1>A2>B
>26 A2>A1>B
>7 B>A1>A2
>6 B>C
>34 C>B
>Any good ( in my opinion)  method should elect A1, A2 and C who all have a 
>Droop quota of first preference votes.
>C wins the final seat against A2.

This sort of issue crops up in PR versions of both approval and COndorcet 
that ate conducted in a SEQUENTIAL fashion.  That is, methods that pick one 
candidate, then re-weight, then pick another, et cetera.  In order to avoid 
these problems, you have to devise a way to compare entire slates of 
candidates to one another.

Forest chewed through all of this last November, and I believe the last 
iteration was this:


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20030722/5721836c/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list