Talk:CDTT: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
imported>MarkusSchulze No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Done, although I'm not sure how useful it is. [[User:KVenzke]] |
Done, although I'm not sure how useful it is. [[User:KVenzke]] |
||
I have deleted the following sentence: "Whichever of these methods is paired with the CDTT, the combined method necessarily fails the [[Plurality criterion]] and [[Condorcet criterion]]." In my opinion, this sentence ("... necessarily fails ...") could be interpreted as if [[CDTT]], [[Plurality criterion|plurality]], and [[Condorcet criterion|Condorcet]] were incompatible. However, the [[Schulze method]] satisfies the [[CDTT]] criterion, the [[Plurality criterion]], and the [[Condorcet criterion]]. [[User:MarkusSchulze|Markus Schulze]] 23 Jun 2005 |
|||
Revision as of 13:44, 23 June 2005
It would be helpful to cite the paper where Woodall defines the criterion. James Green-Armytage 21:32, 19 May 2005 (PDT)
It's from a draft version of a paper that hasn't been published. Do you think this makes a difference? Kevin Venzke 11:33, 20 May 2005 (PDT)
Done, although I'm not sure how useful it is. User:KVenzke
I have deleted the following sentence: "Whichever of these methods is paired with the CDTT, the combined method necessarily fails the Plurality criterion and Condorcet criterion." In my opinion, this sentence ("... necessarily fails ...") could be interpreted as if CDTT, plurality, and Condorcet were incompatible. However, the Schulze method satisfies the CDTT criterion, the Plurality criterion, and the Condorcet criterion. Markus Schulze 23 Jun 2005