Talk:CDTT: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
imported>SEppley (Later No Harm?) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
By the way, I changed that line from ''Regardless of the method paired with the CDTT, it should be noted that the combined method necessarily fails the Plurality criterion and Condorcet criterion,'' because Chris Benham criticized that this statement is only true with LNHarm methods, and that one could conceivably use the CDTT for some other reason. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 07:51, 23 Jun 2005 (PDT) |
By the way, I changed that line from ''Regardless of the method paired with the CDTT, it should be noted that the combined method necessarily fails the Plurality criterion and Condorcet criterion,'' because Chris Benham criticized that this statement is only true with LNHarm methods, and that one could conceivably use the CDTT for some other reason. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 07:51, 23 Jun 2005 (PDT) |
||
==Later No Harm?== |
|||
The article says methods that satisfy CDTT satisfy Later No Harm only when there are 3 (or fewer) candidates. MAM and Schulze's method give identical results when there are 3 or fewer candidates, and neither MAM nor Schulze's method satisfies Later No Harm when there are 4 or more candidates. So why is the article suggesting a connection between CDTT and "coming close to satisfying" Later No Harm? [[User:SEppley|SEppley]] 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Missing justification== |
|||
Criteria need to be justified if they are to be taken seriously. What is the harm to society if society uses a voting method that does not satisfy CDTT? [[User:SEppley|SEppley]] 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||