Talk:Schulze method: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 11:31, 18 October 2012

I added FBC to the list of violated criteria. No one has yet taken an issue with my proof at [1]. -KVenzke

move from CSSD

I moved CSSD to Schulze because this has also been done at WikiPedia and because I want to do this before some newbie does this in the same manner as at WikiPedia and destroys all the connections to the "talk" page, the "history", and the "watchlists". MarkusSchulze 04:27, 22 May 2005 (PDT)

electionmethods.org

This site now displays a page claiming that studying election methods is pointless because one of the collaborators apparently believes some wacky stuff, so the other author has decided that he's representative of all left-wing folks. --ClaireConnelly 00:18, 29 Nov 2005 (PST)

Example 4

Example 4 ends with «Possible Schulze rankings are B > C > D > A, B > D > A > C, B > D > C > A, D > A > B > C, D > B > A > C, and D > B > C > A.». Perhaps someone could elaborate where to go from here when you really want a unique winner and not a tie?

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 This site now displays a page claiming that studying election methods is pointless because one of the collaborators apparently believes some wacky stuff, so the other author has decided that he's representative of all left-wing folks.  --[[User:ClaireConnelly|ClaireConnelly]] 00:18, 29 Nov 2005 (PST)
+== Example 4 ==
+Example 4 ends with «Possible Schulze rankings are B > C > D > A, B > D > A > C, B > D > C > A, D > A > B > C, D > B > A > C, and D > B > C > A.». Perhaps someone could elaborate where to go from here when you really want a unique winner and not a tie?