Talk:Method evaluation poll 2005: Difference between revisions
m
Psephomancy moved page Talk:Method evaluation poll to Talk:Method evaluation poll 2005: Since the other one has a date
imported>James Green-Armytage |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) m (Psephomancy moved page Talk:Method evaluation poll to Talk:Method evaluation poll 2005: Since the other one has a date) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
Also, I was a bit lazy in giving all the CR methods a 4. I think CR is a pointless complication. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 17:22, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)
It is, but it still retains some Approval advantages such as FBC compliance.
Besides, acceptance-psychology counts as a point, except in this pure-merit poll. [MO]
:Yes, I noticed that; it was the only way I could understand your giving approval weighted pairwise a higher score than cardinal weighted pairwise, when AWP is just a limited version of CWP. I don't know if salability is part of your issue with CR, but remember that this poll deals with functional merit rather than salability. Actually, I think that it is more intuitive and easy for most voters to rate candidates on a 0-100 scale than to rank them with an approval cutoff. I suspect that many voters wouldn't understand the approval cutoff, and hence wouldn't use it. Just my opinion. [[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)
Line 15 ⟶ 18:
:::Can you demonstrate that approval strategy ''is'' always the optimal strategy in [http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm cardinal pairwise]? Because approval strategy is nearly always optimal in ordinary range voting, many people assume that it is also optimal in cardinal pairwise. But I haven't seen a demonstration of that yet. To make the demonstration even harder, assume that the maximizing in scale provision is used... [[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 18:25, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)
::::No, I can't. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 23:59, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)
== Condorcet//approval w Cutoff ==
I have joined here in search of a Condorcet method having certain features. I have looked over a few confusing pages like approval-sorted margins, and I have not yet found what I am looking for. Do any of the methods in this poll do the following:
Rank all (but one) candidates (no truncation, no ties) and include an approval cut-off among them; the winner is the Schwartz set member approved by the most voters.
[[User:Jrfisher|Jrfisher]] 12:39, 17 Aug 2005 (PDT)
I will add Schwartz//Approval with explicit cutoff for you. [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 11:43, 18 Aug 2005 (PDT)
| |||