Anonymous user
Talk:Majority: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Wegerje (CSS? Ask. I know just enough to bullshit an answer.) |
imported>RobLa No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
== Criterion ==
oops! Criterion 1 looked out of place to me. A long sentence whereas the others were a couple of words. Then I looked at what you had done. You (Dan K) have created pages with the word Criterion as part of the page name! I think that that is a logical and/or structural mistake, IMHO. I'm too tired to explain better now, it has just struck me as I was about to call it a night. [[User:Wegerje|Wegerje]] 21:07, 16 Mar 2005 (PST)
Line 15 ⟶ 17:
::::'''No not that,''' although that may be an issue in itself. I didn't realize that people actually called something the "Generalized Condorcet ciriterion" or the "Montonicity criterion". I didn't realize that "criterion" was a part of the name and that people used it in common reference. My Bad, as bloggers say.
== Definition of "Intermediate majority rule methods' ==
The definition of "intermediate majority rule methods" could be interpreted more than one way. Does "Criteria 1, 2, and 3: Intermediate majority rule methods" mean that only methods satisfying all three of those criteria can qualify? If so, then listing Minimax and Black is erroneous, since both of them fail "Criterion 2: Mutual majority criterion". (The obvious example of a method satisfying criteria 1, 2 and 3 but not 4 is IRV-completed Condorcet.)
Or are "intermediate majority rule methods" and Condorcet methods that aren't Smith-efficient, without regard to mutual majorities? If so, "Criteria 1, 2, and 3: Intermediate majority rule methods" needs to be changed. -- (unsigned comment 21:43, 31 October 2005 by 202.27.213.4)
| |||