Method evaluation poll 2005: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>James Green-Armytage |
imported>James Green-Armytage |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
SR JH JG KV MO |
SR JH JG KV MO |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
=== rating input === |
=== rating input === |
||
Revision as of 11:52, 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 Borda count IRV without equal rankings ER-IRV(whole) ER-IRV(fractional)
nearly Condorcet-efficient
SR JH JG KV MO minmax(pairwise opposition) CDTT,IRV
Condorcet-efficient
SR JH JG KV MO ranked pairs(WV) ranked pairs(margins) beatpath(WV) beatpath(margins) sequential dropping(WV) minmax(WV)
SR JH JG KV MO minmax(margins) Smith//minmax(WV) Smith//minmax(margins) Nanson Raynaud
ranking input with approval cutoff
SR JH JG KV MO Definite majority choice Approval weighted pairwise Approval margins
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