Talk:Majority: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Wegerje No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''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. |
Revision as of 05:43, 1 November 2005
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.