Talk:Techniques of method design: Difference between revisions
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
(→Cardinal strength: new section) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I've never heard Schwartz defined as the union of sets. Is it useful to do so? -Kevin Venzke |
I've never heard Schwartz defined as the union of sets. Is it useful to do so? -Kevin Venzke |
||
== Cardinal strength == |
|||
: "Cardinal rated strength = sum of difference in the candidates' cardinal ratings on all ballots which rate the winner over the loser of the defeat. Helps diminishing certain strategies even better, but requires interpersonally comparable cardinal ratings." |
|||
Interesting. Any reason this was chosen over the (more intuitive to me) median difference in candidate ratings? This would be positive if most candidates rank A > B and negative otherwise; the decision to treat winning and losing votes asymmetrically seems odd to me. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:02, 2 April 2024
Hi. I made additions regarding pairwise opposition as an alternative approach to defeat strength; majority-strength defeats; and also the definition of the CDTT. -Kevin Venzke
Why is "union of minimal undominated sets" offered as a name for Schwartz? When "undominated set" means "no candidate in the set has more than half the votes against them in any contest with a candidate outside the set," then this is actually the definition of the CDTT. (Woodall uses "dominate" for majority-strength wins.)
I've never heard Schwartz defined as the union of sets. Is it useful to do so? -Kevin Venzke
Cardinal strength
- "Cardinal rated strength = sum of difference in the candidates' cardinal ratings on all ballots which rate the winner over the loser of the defeat. Helps diminishing certain strategies even better, but requires interpersonally comparable cardinal ratings."
Interesting. Any reason this was chosen over the (more intuitive to me) median difference in candidate ratings? This would be positive if most candidates rank A > B and negative otherwise; the decision to treat winning and losing votes asymmetrically seems odd to me. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)