[EM] Re: Bucklin

[Paul Kislanko]

"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?
> 
> Thanks,
> Gervase.
> 
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>