Talk:Center squeeze: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (Cleaned up some indentation.) |
|||
Line 32:
: Presumably, Center should also be elected if any of the candidates is cloned in a way that does not introduce a Condorcet cycle among the cloned candidates. This could exclude methods that check a fixed number of candidates to otherwise obtain Condorcet compliance, but it would also be more difficult to test. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 14:41, 18 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, [[User:RalphInOttawa|RalphInOttawa]]. Some reasonable definitions:
:::: 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.
:::: 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).
::: --[[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||