Talk:Condorcet method: Difference between revisions
→Marquette: new section
(→Marquette: new section) |
|||
Line 16:
::: Ah, I think I understand. So "Given a voting method, if the winner of that voting method would beat every other candidate in head-to-head elections ''using that same voting method for the head-to-head elections''"? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 15:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
::::YES, "Given a voting method, if the winner of that voting method would beat every other candidate in head-to-head elections ''using that same voting method for the head-to-head elections'' he should be the one that would win the election"?
== Marquette ==
I doubt that Marquette, Michigan, used the Nanson method. I rather believe that Marquette used the Baldwin method and that Hallett mixed up the Nanson method and the Baldwin method (Clarence G. Hoag, George H. Hallett, "Proportional Representation", Macmillan, 1926). The reason for my suspicion: Whenever Hallett tries to formulate statutory rules for the Nanson method, he actually formulates the Baldwin method. Is there an independent source that says that Marquette used the Nanson method? [[User:MarkusSchulze|MarkusSchulze]] ([[User talk:MarkusSchulze|talk]]) 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
| |||