Talk:Blank Ballot Criterion: Difference between revisions

imported>KVenzke
imported>MarkusSchulze
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 2:
 
No, I don't understand the name either. -KVenzke
 
Russ has just re-proposed this criterion on the mailing list as the "Blank Ballot Criterion". IMHO, that's a more reasonable name. [[User:DanBishop|DanBishop]] 13:16, 25 Jun 2005 (PDT)
 
== Complying Methods ==
Line 7 ⟶ 9:
The article says:
 
:*'''Complies''': [[Approval voting]], [[Cardinal Ratings]], [[Schulze method|Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential DroppingSchulze]]
:*'''Fails''': [[Median Ratings]], methods electing from the [[CDTT|CDTT set]]
 
[[Schulze method|Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential DroppingSchulze]] always chooses from the [[CDTT|CDTT set]]. Therefore, the above list cannot be correct. [[User:MarkusSchulze|MarkusSchulze]] 15:49, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
 
Hmm... The problem is that "methods electing from the [[CDTT|CDTT set]]" is not specific enough. I'm responsible for that wording, of course. If you add, and count, ballots ranking all candidates equal, then this can delete CDTT wins (i.e. majority-strength wins). So the result can change in a method which explicitly finds the CDTT set. Any ideas on how to reword this? [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 16:22, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
Line 17 ⟶ 19:
 
Ok, I'll change it. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)
 
This criterion has the problem that any method can (and in my opinion should) easily dodge it by simply including a rule that "blank ballots" aren't counted. The way Woodall defines his CDTT does this, so therefore
CDTT,IRV does not fail this criterion. [Chris Benham] [[User:144.138.152.168|144.138.152.168]] 23:36, 11 Jul 2005 (PDT)