[EM] Comments on the declaration 2

[Juho Laatu]

Ok. Maybe the meaning of the ballots should be expressed more clearly. In Kristofer Munsterhjelm's example (= your example modified) the votes are now fully ranked, and my example uses short notation although I had no intention to refer to implicit approval of the listed candidates. Notations that show both first preferences and/or approvals of listed candidates would be clumsy, so maybe the surrounding text should be used to mention such assumptions.

On the other hand your / Kristofer Munsterhjelm's example works fine and demonstrates problems of MMPO also without implicit approval and first place assumptions and plurality criterion.

Juho


On 15.10.2011, at 5.40, Kevin Venzke wrote:

> Juho,
>  
> Truthfully my damning MMPO scenario is meant to show a Plurality failure, so the
> last-preference rankings that Kristofer lists as equal are meant to be truncated.
> In other words, candidate C receives acknowledgement from TWO voters.
> The appalling thing is not meant to be that the winner primarily has lower preferences.
> We would be able to choose from very few methods if that were the problem.
>  
> Kevin
> 
> --- En date de : Ven 14.10.11, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> a écrit :
> 
> De: Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Objet: Re: [EM] Comments on the declaration and on a few voting systems
> À: "Election Methods" <election-methods at electorama.com>
> Date: Vendredi 14 octobre 2011, 15h11
> 
> If that one example set of votes is "bad enough" for MMPO, then how about this example for PC(wv)?
> 
> 49 A
> 48 B > C
> 03 C
> 
> Juho
>  
>  
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111015/748d39a1/attachment-0002.htm>