Talk:Techniques of method design: Difference between revisions
(→Cardinal strength: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Schwartz definition == |
|||
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 |
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 |
||
| Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
== Cardinal strength == |
== Cardinal strength == |
||
| ⚫ | <blockquote>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."</blockquote>Interesting. Any reason this was chosen over the (more intuitive to me) median difference in candidate ratings? The decision to treat winning and losing votes asymmetrically strikes me as odd. [[User:Closed Limelike Curves|Closed Limelike Curves]] ([[User talk:Closed Limelike Curves|talk]]) 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
: "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? |
||
Revision as of 20:05, 2 April 2024
Schwartz definition
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? The decision to treat winning and losing votes asymmetrically strikes me as odd. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)