[EM] Re: Election-methods Digest, Vol 4, Issue 13

Gervase Lam gervase.lam at group.force9.co.uk
Thu Oct 14 14:51:50 PDT 2004


> From: Gervase Lam
> Subject: Re: [EM] Re: Election-methods Digest, Vol 4, Issue 13
> Date: Thursday 14 October 2004 22:41 pm

> > From: Matthew Dempsky
> > Subject: Re: [EM] Re: Election-methods Digest, Vol 4, Issue 13
> > Date: Thursday 14 October 2004 02:09 am
> >
> > On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 20:45, Gervase Lam wrote:
> > > Kemeny can be basically described as follows:
> >
> > > [...example elided...]
> >
> > It seems similar in concept to finding the line of best fit, which
> > I'll note tries to minimize the sum of squared differences rather than
> > simply the sum of absolute differences.  Has that alternative been
> > considered?
>
> I don't think so, no.  However, the only way I can think of using this
> is possibly for multi-winner (e.g. a panel of candidates) election.  See
> <>. However, it talks about cardinal social utilities.  Condorcet
> methods don't have cardinal utilities as the input.

Whoops!  It might have been a good idea surf the web first so that I could 
put a link in between the '<' and '>', and then send the e-mail rather 
than sending the e-mail first...

<http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2001-January/004978.html>

Unfortunately, the formatting of the page is not very good.  Search for 
the word "isotone" on Yahoo Groups for this list might get something 
slightly better.

Thanks,
Gervase.



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list