Talk:Sequentially Spent Score: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
(4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 13:
: Which criterion? Consistency? Maybe I was more thinking of Partitionable --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 17:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
::
::
::: [[User:ParkerFriedland|ParkerFriedland]] You are right. We should try to get together a list of criteria for multimember systems. There is an attempt on wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems#Compliance_of_non-majoritarian_party-agnostic_multi-winner_methods here] but I think we can do better
4. As you said yourself, vote unitary isn't a criteria but a class of voting methods. It's not a criteria so we shouldn't treat it as one.
Line 36 ⟶ 39:
: - "Desirable" is a very subjective thing, and whether it's desirable for a method to pass or fail a criterion has no bearing on whether it actually does pass or fail that criterion. Since it's subjective, you should clarify what you mean by it, and back that up. If you mean e.g. "the method says it's proportional, but consistency (or whatever criterion) is incompatible with Droop proportionality and no other proportionality criterion has been given" then that's what you should say, because it says ''what'' is wrong.
::
: - That said, I'm inclined to think that every criterion compliance statement should either be accompanied by a proof or a reference to a source that contains a proof. It's easy to think that a method "obviously" passes some criterion when it doesn't. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 12:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
|