[EM] Re: Bucklin
kislanko at airmail.net
Tue Sep 27 16:51:35 PDT 2005
"A>B>>others, which is not
quite the same as A>B>others."
No. A+=B is still A>B. The >> thing is irrelevant.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of Gervase Lam
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:16 PM
> To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] Re: Bucklin
> > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:45:11 -0500
> > From: "Paul Kislanko"
> > Subject: [EM] RE: Bucklin
> > I still don't see why A+=B>others is any different from A>B>others.
> OK. Another way to describe A+=B>others is A>B>>others, which is not
> quite the same as A>B>others.
> For a moment, having the '+' the way you described seemed a
> bit daft to
> me. But it then gave me a sort of idea of a "backwards" method. I
> haven't the brain power at the moment to invent one, but is there a
> method where all of the rankings are collapsed (i.e. the pluses are
> ignored) and if there is still not a result, the rankings in people's
> ballots are expanded?
> Or may be if an existing method can be reworded in such a way
> as to have
> the rankings expanded rather than collapsed?
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
> for list info
More information about the Election-Methods