Method evaluation poll 2005: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>James Green-Armytage (revert) |
imported>James Green-Armytage No edit summary |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
=== binary input === |
=== binary input === |
||
SR JH JG KV MO |
|||
JG |
|||
[[Plurality]] |
[[Plurality]] |
||
3 |
|||
[[runoff|Two round runoff]] |
[[runoff|Two round runoff]] |
||
4 |
|||
[[Approval]] |
[[Approval]] |
||
7 |
|||
=== ranking input === |
=== ranking input === |
Revision as of 11:51, 14 June 2005
Particlar methods
Please rate the following methods on a scale from 0 to 10, on merit alone (That is, leaving the issue of public salability aside, how well will the method perform in a large, contentious electorate?)
binary input
SR JH JG KV MO Plurality
Two round runoff
Approval
ranking input
not Condorcet-efficient
SR JH JG KV MO
IRV without equal rankings
ER-IRV(whole)
ER-IRV(fractional)
nearly Condorcet-efficient
SR JH JG KV MO
Condorcet-efficient
SR JH JG KV MO
ranked pairs(WV)
ranked pairs(margins)
beatpath(WV)
beatpath(margins)
minmax(WV)
SR JH JG KV MO
minmax(margins)
Smith//minmax(WV)
Smith//minmax(margins)
ranking input with approval cutoff
SR JH JG KV MO
rating input
SR JH JG KV MO
ranked pairs(cardinal pairwise)
beatpath(cardinal pairwise)
other
CWO-ER-IRV(whole)
CWO-ER-IRV(fractional)
CWO-ranked pairs(WV)
CWO-ranked ballot plurality
minmax(pairwise opposition) with AERLO and ATLO
beatpath(WV)with AERLO and ATLO