CPAR voting: Difference between revisions

CPAR voting (view source)

57 bytes added , 5 years ago

1,889

edits

Revision as of 13:40, 7 November 2016 (view source) imported>Homunq No edit summary ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 13:13, 2 September 2018 (view source) Psephomancy (talk \| contribs) (Category:Graded Bucklin systems → Category:Graded Bucklin methods)
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 17: == Criteria compliance == PAR voting passes ~~the [[favorite betrayal criterion]],~~ the [[majority criterion]], the [[mutual majority criterion]], [[Local independence of irrelevant alternatives]] (under the assumption of fixed "honest" ratings for each voter for each candidate), [[Independence of clone alternatives]], [[Monotonicity]], [[polytime]], [[resolvability]], and the [[later-no-help criterion]]. Doesn't pass the [[favorite betrayal criterion]], see mailing list or talk page for details. There are a few criteria for which it does not pass as such, but where it passes related but weaker criteria. These include: Line 77 ⟶ 79: (If Memphis voters rejected Nashville, then Chattanooga or Knoxville could win by conspiring to reject Nashville and accept Memphis. However, Nashville could stop this by rejecting them. Thus this strategy would not work without extreme foolishness from both Memphis and Nashville voters, and extreme amounts of strategy from the others.) [[Category:Graded Bucklin ~~systems~~methods]]