Majority Choice Approval: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
All of the methods are matrix-summable for counting at the precinct level. Only MCA-VR actually requires a matrix (or, possibly two counting rounds); the others require only O(N) tallies. |
All of the methods are matrix-summable for counting at the precinct level. Only MCA-VR actually requires a matrix (or, possibly two counting rounds); the others require only O(N) tallies. |
||
Thus, the method which satisfies the most criteria is MCA-AR, using [[Schulze]] to select one finalist and MCA-P to select the other. As a rated method (and thus one which fails Arrow's ranking-based Universality Criterion), this method is able to seem to "violate Arrow's theorem" by simultaneously satisfying monotonicity, the Condorcet criterion, and clone independence. |
Thus, the method which satisfies the most criteria is MCA-AR, using [[Schulze]] to select one finalist and MCA-P to select the other. As a rated method (and thus one which fails Arrow's ranking-based Universality Criterion), this method is able to seem to "violate [[Arrow's theorem]]" by simultaneously satisfying monotonicity, the Condorcet criterion, and clone independence. |
||
== An example == |
|||
{{Tenn_voting_example}} |
{{Tenn_voting_example}} |
||