Talk:Majority: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>RobLa (restoring some blanked discussion) |
imported>RobLa No edit summary |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
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.) |
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. |
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) |
||