On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> False (in general).
[...]
> That depends on how you arrange the voting process.
That was my point.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> False (in general).
[...]
> That depends on how you arrange the voting process.
That was my point.
--
G. Branden Robinson|
Debian GNU/Linux | Ignorantia judicis est calamitas
[EMAIL PROTECT
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > > options over another option?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:39:21PM +1000, Anthon
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
>
False (in general).
> Is my understanding correct?
>
That depends on how you arrange the voting pro
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > > options over another option?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:39:21PM +1000, Anthon
Hi,
Branden Robinson:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
>
False (in general).
> Is my understanding correct?
>
That depends on how you arrange the voting pro
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:47:03PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > options over another
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:39:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > options over anothe
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:47:03PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > options over another
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:39:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> > options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> > options over anothe
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
It's possible. Even if the underlying data structures would
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
It's possible. Even if the underlying data structures would
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
[ 1 ] Foo
[ 2 ] Bar
[ 2 ] Baz
[ 3 ] Quux
should work fine w
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. If the voter does not rank some options,
>this means that the voter prefers all ranked options over the
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:11:30AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It is not possible for to express a lack of preference among multiple
> options simultaneously with a preference for any of those multiple
> options over another option?
[ 1 ] Foo
[ 2 ] Bar
[ 2 ] Baz
[ 3 ] Quux
should work fine w
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> A.6 Vote Counting
>
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. If the voter does not rank some options,
>this means that the voter prefers all ranked options over the
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> The Schwartz set is the set of innermost unbeatened sets. There cannot
> be more than one Schwartz set at any one time for any one set of votes.
>
> See http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html for a more extensive
> discussion of this subject.
>
Thanks for the link.
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> The Schwartz set is the set of innermost unbeatened sets. There cannot
> be more than one Schwartz set at any one time for any one set of votes.
>
> See http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/condor2.html for a more extensive
> discussion of this subject.
>
Thanks for the link.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:56:37PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> The reason for this to be a problem is that the dropping step only considers
> the _innermost_ Schwartz set. There may be more than one, though off-hand
> I couldn't invent a suitable example -- I'm sure one exists in the
> literat
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> > >v. If this new Schwartz set contains only one option, that
> > > option wins.
> > >
> > As per the definition, there is no such thing as a one-option Schwartz
> > set
> Uh, if C is the Condorcet winner, or becomes the Condorcet winner after
> ignoring so
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:23:13AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Note that ALL propositions are considered here, not just those
> > participating in the Schwartz set.
>
> Hmm.. that's not what I was trying to say. Thanks.
>
The reason for this to be a problem is that the
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Definition: An option F transitively defeats an option G if G
> > defeats F or if there is some other option H where H defeats
> > G AND F transitively defeats H.
>
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 09:04:42AM +01
Raul Miller:
> >iv. If eliminating the weakest propositions would not eliminate
> >all votes, a new Schwartz set is found based on the newly
> >revised set of propositions.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:23:13AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Note that ALL proposition
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 06:56:37PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> The reason for this to be a problem is that the dropping step only considers
> the _innermost_ Schwartz set. There may be more than one, though off-hand
> I couldn't invent a suitable example -- I'm sure one exists in the
> literat
Hi,
Anthony Towns:
> > >v. If this new Schwartz set contains only one option, that
> > > option wins.
> > >
> > As per the definition, there is no such thing as a one-option Schwartz
> > set
> Uh, if C is the Condorcet winner, or becomes the Condorcet winner after
> ignoring so
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:23:13AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Note that ALL propositions are considered here, not just those
> > participating in the Schwartz set.
>
> Hmm.. that's not what I was trying to say. Thanks.
>
The reason for this to be a problem is that the
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Definition: An option F transitively defeats an option G if G
> > defeats F or if there is some other option H where H defeats
> > G AND F transitively defeats H.
>
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 09:04:42AM +01
Raul Miller:
> >iv. If eliminating the weakest propositions would not eliminate
> >all votes, a new Schwartz set is found based on the newly
> >revised set of propositions.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:23:13AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Note that ALL proposition
Hello,
even more confusion on my side :-(
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. If the voter does not rank some options,
>this means that the voter prefers all rank
Hello
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>Definition: A proposition is a defeat, or a pair of options
>where both have received votes explicitly comparing the two
>options but neither option is able to defeat the other.
Sorry, but I do
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Definition: An option F transitively defeats an option G if G
> defeats F or if there is some other option H where H defeats
> G AND F transitively defeats H.
There is a mistake: "... if G defeats
Hello,
even more confusion on my side :-(
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. If the voter does not rank some options,
>this means that the voter prefers all rank
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:23:13AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >v. If this new Schwartz set contains only one option, that
> > option wins.
> >
> As per the definition, there is no such thing as a one-option Schwartz
> set, so actually you'll have to restart with step 5. You
Hello
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>Definition: A proposition is a defeat, or a pair of options
>where both have received votes explicitly comparing the two
>options but neither option is able to defeat the other.
Sorry, but I do
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 06:51:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Definition: An option F transitively defeats an option G if G
> defeats F or if there is some other option H where H defeats
> G AND F transitively defeats H.
There is a mistake: "... if G defeats
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:23:13AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >v. If this new Schwartz set contains only one option, that
> > option wins.
> >
> As per the definition, there is no such thing as a one-option Schwartz
> set, so actually you'll have to restart with step 5. You
Hi,
Raul Miller:
>iv. If eliminating the weakest propositions would not eliminate
>all votes, a new Schwartz set is found based on the newly
>revised set of propositions.
>
Note that ALL propositions are considered here, not just those
participating in the Schwartz
Hi,
Raul Miller:
>iv. If eliminating the weakest propositions would not eliminate
>all votes, a new Schwartz set is found based on the newly
>revised set of propositions.
>
Note that ALL propositions are considered here, not just those
participating in the Schwartz
38 matches
Mail list logo
