[EM] Re: reccomendations (Schwartz // SC-WMA correction)
chrisbenham at bigpond.com
Mon Sep 6 22:53:02 PDT 2004
James Green-Armytage wrote:
>Am I correct in observing that Schwartz // SC-WMA is similar to completing
>Condorcet with Schwartz and then Bucklin? How does the former differ from
CB: Bucklin hopelessly fails Clone Independence, and so (according to
EMR) is vulnerable to crowding
<http://condorcet.org/emr/defn.shtml#crowding> and teaming
I would never knowingly reccomend a method that does that.
On the other hand Bucklin meets Mono-raise, and SC-WMA (I think
fairly benignly) doesn't.
Here is a simple example from Marcus Schulze:
Bucklin and SC-WMA both elect C.
Now we replace C with the clone set C1, C2, C3.
Now Bucklin elects B.
SC-WMA "Weights": A:2, B:3, C1: 4, C2: 0, C3: 0.
Each ballot approves from the top, until at least half (by "weight") of
the candidates have been approved. Thus:
Final "approval" scores: A:6, B:5, C1: 7, C2: 7, C3: 7.
The three clones are tied for first. I would favour resolving this by
electing the tied candidate with the greatest "weight", C1.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods