Anonymous user
Talk:CDTT: Difference between revisions
→Later No Harm?
imported>SEppley (Later No Harm?) |
imported>SEppley |
||
Line 12:
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? Minimal Defense?==
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)
Similarly, it is not necessary to satisfy CDTT to satisfy Minimal Defense and the other related strategy criteria. (For instance, MAM satisfies those criteria.) CDTT is not really related to them. [[User:SEppley|SEppley]] 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
==Missing justification==
| |||