Just to clarify what I meant for my suggestion, my
chicken-dilemma-free suggestion would be this:
Do a rank-balloting among all of the options, with D as one of the options..
Do a Schwartz Woodall count.among all the options.
If D wins, or if the winner loses pairwise to D, or if the wnner
doesn
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:56:49AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> Of course obviously, if Debian doesn't have a chicken dilemma, there's
> no need for Debian to change its voting system from CSSD to Schwartz
> Woodall.
I think we do theoretically have this problem, and maybe we should
change. B
Sorry to bother you again, but I want to correct an error that I made,
in a definition that I posted:
I wanted to express the beatpath definition of the Schwartz set in a
simpler and more compelling or appealing way, and the cycle definition
(that I've posted here) seemed such a simplification.
B
Hi Michael,
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 04:11:58PM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> [quote]
> However this seems quite a risky strategy by the B voters. The
> situation seems contrived and unlikely to arise in practice.
> [/quote]
> But what if the B voters know for a fact that the A voters are
> c
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 05:22:43PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Where can we find public, third-party review and analysis of the method you
> propose (which seems to be a hybrid of other methods - so I'm not sure if it
> can properly be called "Schwartz Woodall" or not?)?
Whoops, sorry - I see
(With apologies to the non-Americans on -vote... :)
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:56:49AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> One reason why I've been advocating Schwartz Woodal (along with
> Woodall and Benham) is because, in official public government
> elections, the chicken dilemma _would_ be a prob
6 matches
Mail list logo
