Talk:Distributed Score Voting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Aldo Tragni (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6:
: Woodall states that DAC passes participation in his article "Monotonicity and Single-Seat Election Rules". [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 09:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
:: I'd guess the reasoning for why consistency and participation are equivalent is that if you have a group of voters before and after adding in a voter, participation requires that voter not to get a worse result from voting, while consistency considers the voter a second "group" of voters who, when their vote fuses with the first group, shouldn't change the winner if they personally voted for the winner as their 1st choice. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 16:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Line 34 ⟶ 36:
:::: - B is inside the Smith set: adding C could not get B out of the Smith set; at most C could enter the Smith set. In the Smith set the score voting is applied to choose the winner [[User:Aldo Tragni|Aldo Tragni]] ([[User talk:Aldo Tragni|talk]]) 14:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
::::: That is, as best as I can tell, ISDA (Independence of Smith-dominated Alternatives). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_Smith-dominated_alternatives. Also, just as a note, if the "eliminate the worst, redistribute points" procedure is done to the candidates within the Smith Set, that seems equivalent to [[Smith//IRV]], while if you're correct about this being Score Voting in the Smith Set, then it's equivalent to [[Smith//Score]]. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 16:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||