Maximum Constrained Approval Bucklin: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (Add author name to references) |
m (Remove epsilon notice.) |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
What ended up as FAB was initially proposed in 2017<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2017-January/001276.html|title=Bucklin multiwinner method|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2017-01-06|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref> and simplified in later that year<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2017-September/001584.html|title=A simpler vote management-resistant Bucklin LP|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2017-09-15|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref>. The method detailed here has been further modified from the EM posts to resist Woodall [[free riding]]. |
What ended up as FAB was initially proposed in 2017<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2017-January/001276.html|title=Bucklin multiwinner method|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2017-01-06|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref> and simplified in later that year<ref>{{cite web|url=http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2017-September/001584.html|title=A simpler vote management-resistant Bucklin LP|website=Election-methods mailing list archives|date=2017-09-15|last=Munsterhjelm|first=K.}}</ref>. The method detailed here has been further modified from the EM posts to resist Woodall [[free riding]]. |
||
<<TBD, below this point, particularly the handling of epsilons>> |
|||
== Determining the support for X == |
== Determining the support for X == |
||
Line 80: | Line 78: | ||
Both candidates have exceeded the Droop quota, but B has greater support, so B is elected. After this, technically speaking, C gets another shot. |
Both candidates have exceeded the Droop quota, but B has greater support, so B is elected. After this, technically speaking, C gets another shot. |
||
Making the case for C, again: Of the 20 remaining votes from electing A, 3 |
Making the case for C, again: Of the 20 remaining votes from electing A, 3 of these must go to electing B, so that 27 + 3 >= 30. That leaves 30 for C, which is not enough to clear the Droop quota. So C is disqualified. |
||
Now every remaining candidate (namely C) is disqualified and the procedure is over. The winners are A and B. |
Now every remaining candidate (namely C) is disqualified and the procedure is over. The winners are A and B. |