[EM] Bill: Re: our criteria & definitions

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Wed Jan 28 18:35:02 PST 2004


 --- MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com> a écrit : > 
> Approval doesn't meet our CC. But Approval & Plurality meet Blake Cretney's 
> CC. Or they would except that Blake avoids that by stipulating that CC 
> applies only to rank methods. Our CC applies meaningfully and as-expected to 
> all methods. Check Markus's CC. If Markus defines CC, most likely Plurality 
> passes Markus's CC too, unless Markus copies Blake's stipulation that CC 
> applies only to rank methods.

I note that Plurality can be made to fail Condorcet, without reference to
sincere preferences, by interpreting Plurality as a ranked method which 
disregards all but the first preference on each ballot.

This works with Approval, too, if for instance disapproved candidates are
considered to be ranked equal in last place.

Kevin Venzke
stepjak at yahoo.fr

Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list