Talk:Center squeeze: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:: Good thinking. I will try more variations in the vote counts and comment on the results. Also, will have a look at your cloning scenario. Thanks for the feedback. [[User:RalphInOttawa|RalphInOttawa]] ([[User talk:RalphInOttawa|talk]]) 19:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
:: Good thinking. I will try more variations in the vote counts and comment on the results. Also, will have a look at your cloning scenario. Thanks for the feedback. [[User:RalphInOttawa|RalphInOttawa]] ([[User talk:RalphInOttawa|talk]]) 19:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
: I'm interested in a formal definition of a "center squeeze" criterion as well |
: I'm interested in a formal definition of a "center squeeze" criterion as well, [[User:RalphInOttawa|RalphInOttawa]]. Some reasonable definitions: |
||
:: 1. Candidates can fall outside of their region on a Yee diagram ( |
:: 1. Candidates can fall outside of their region on a Yee diagram. (I think this is the best definition.) |
||
:: 2. Candidates may have an empty set on a Yee diagram. |
:: 2. Candidates may have an empty set on a Yee diagram. |
||
:: 3. Satisfying the traditional definition of candidate-later-no-harm (i.e. later preferences have no impact on the election, so there's no consensus-seeking). |
:: 3. Satisfying the traditional definition of candidate-later-no-harm (i.e. later preferences have no impact on the election, so there's no consensus-seeking). |
||