what he is.
Persons suspecting that I have quit could e-mail me at my
single-transferable-vote amailing list and maybe engage in an argument
there.
In truth there is no room for dissent on what the best 3 winner method
is (with STV style papers). I wonder if Manoj would actually provide an
argument showing that his inconsistent view of improving the system is
true).
Craig Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ada 95 mailing lists: http://www.ijs.co.nz/ada_95.htm
At 03\04\22 10:35 +0200 Tuesday, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>[] Re Condorcet cuckoos promotin3.ems
>*** PGP Signature Status: unknown
>*** Signer: Unknown, Key ID xD70AAFF9
>*** Signed: 03\04\22 8:35:55 PM
>*** Verified: 03\04\22 10:21:05 PM
>*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
>
>Hi,
>
>Jochen Voss w
At 03\04\21 16:46 +0200 Monday, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> He's one of /THEM/ and, no, I'm not permitted to go into details.
>
>Well, if we're having THAT kind of discussion, there's a couple of quotes
>which have been censored from the *CENSORED* report which prove that
>they have sucxiqz5
he winner.
Somehow the methods are insensitive to whether that permuting was
done or not.
It may have to do with passing P2.
P2 saying things including this:
the winners are unaffected by the change 2(A)-(AB)-(AC) results in
an implausible preferential voting method):
http://groups
4 matches
Mail list logo
