Anonymous user
Talk:Definite Majority Choice: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Araucaria (So ties have to be discussed) |
imported>Heitzig-j No edit summary |
||
Line 6:
3 A=B=C
</pre>
Here no "majority agrees" that any candidate should be eliminated! [Heitzig-j]
:: No, I didn't talk about ties but about ties but about majorities! In the above example, there are defeats but no majorities in the usual sense of more than half of the voters. [Heitzig-j]
I think I sent a suggestion in private email, but here it is again.▼
▲:I think I sent a suggestion in private email, but here it is again.
The initial page I put up was intended as a public elections proposal. So I wasn't thinking about ties.▼
▲:The initial page I put up was intended as a public elections proposal. So I wasn't thinking about ties.
In DMC, we eliminate candidates that lose pairwise matches to higher-approved candidates. Call the set of remaining candidates P.▼
▲:In DMC, we eliminate candidates that lose pairwise matches to higher-approved candidates. Call the set of remaining candidates P.
If there is a tie, or if in a public election there is a near-tie (difference of, say, 0.01%), what about forming the superset P*, the union of all P's resulting from all possible reversed close races.▼
▲:If there is a tie, or if in a public election there is a near-tie (difference of, say, 0.01%), what about forming the superset P*, the union of all P's resulting from all possible reversed close races.
Then choose the winner by [[Random Ballot]].▼
▲:Then choose the winner by [[Random Ballot]].
| |||