[EM] CDTT,IRV (James)

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Fri May 27 12:36:18 PDT 2005


--- James Green-Armytage <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu> a écrit:
> Kevin Venzke <stepjak at yahoo.fr> writes:
> >I find your choice of words amusing. By analogy, if no one drops a
> >bomb on me then I'm "inconclusively-exploded."
> I'm not sure if I understand the analogy. Using my UMID terminology (not
> something I'm terribly attached to, but anyway...), if there is a majority
> A>B pairwise beat, then B is "conclusively dominated" by A. If there is a
> non-majority A>B pairwise beat, then B is "inconclusively dominated" by A.
> However, come to think of it, that language might be somewhat misleading
> since a "conclusively dominated" candidate can still win. Oh well.

What I find funny is that B can be "inconclusively dominated" by A, and
"conclusively dominate" A, at the same time.

> When did Markus propose the Smith/truncation set? Was it before Woodall's
> CDTT? Can you provide a link?

It was 1997:

Kevin Venzke


Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list