Talk:Blank Ballot Criterion: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Talk:Blank Ballot Criterion (view source)

Revision as of 01:46, 4 December 2005

62 bytes removed , 18 years ago

→‎Complying Methods

VisualWikitext

Anonymous user

imported>MarkusSchulze

Revision as of 08:22, 12 July 2005 (view source) 144.138.152.99 (talk) (→‎Complying Methods) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 01:46, 4 December 2005 (view source) imported>MarkusSchulze (→‎Complying Methods)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 9: The article says: :'''Complies''': [[Approval voting]], [[Cardinal Ratings]], [[Schulze method\|~~Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping~~Schulze]] :'''Fails''': [[Median Ratings]], methods electing from the [[CDTT\|CDTT set]] [[Schulze method\|~~Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping~~Schulze]] 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 21: 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)