4,193
edits
Talk:Weighted positional method: Difference between revisions
Formatting this page like a proper talk page
mNo edit summary |
(Formatting this page like a proper talk page) |
||
Line 1:
This is the discussion page (the "Talk:" page) for the page named "[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]". Please use this page to discuss the topic described in the corresponding page in the main namespace (i.e. the "[[{{BASEPAGENAME}}]]" page here on electowiki), or visit [[Help:Talk]] to learn more about talk pages.
== Baldwin and Nanson ==
"It follows that the only Condorcet-compliant sequential runoff method based on a weighted positional method is Baldwin"
Line 7 ⟶ 10:
:: Just as a technical note, IRV is often done with batch elimination, though only when this is mathematically guaranteed to give the same winner(s) as one-at-a-time elimination. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 15:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
== Borda and Condorcet Winner ranking ==
Since Nanson and Baldwin pass Smith, can we rephrase this as "never ranks every member of the Smith set last"? [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 07:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Line 17 ⟶ 21:
: For Nanson, you also need to prove that eliminating below-average Borda count members won't erase the whole Smith set in one go, so that's slightly more complicated. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 10:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
== Category ==
Can we make a category for IRV, Coombs, Baldwin, and similar methods? "Sequential runoff methods" or "sequential elimination methods" or something? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 15:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||