User talk:Psephomancy: Difference between revisions
→Criterion compliance logic
Line 89:
: [[mw:Extension:Wikibase_Client]] is also available. Would either of those do what you want? (We can turn on any of the extensions on [[meta:Extensions]] with a few clicks.) — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
: Quite a lot could be done with such an idea. Consider for example that if a voting method passes the majority criterion and ordinal cloneproofness, it must also pass mutual majority, since a mutual majority's preferred set of candidates are essentially a clone set where if you eliminate all but any one of them, the remaining candidate is the majority's 1st choice, and must win. So an automatic criterion checker could suggest this for voting methods that are proven to pass the first two criteria, for example. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)▼
Line 110 ⟶ 112:
: That's fine with me. You mean evidence that is not a citation, though? What form would that take? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
▲: Quite a lot could be done with such an idea. Consider for example that if a voting method passes the majority criterion and ordinal cloneproofness, it must also pass mutual majority, since a mutual majority's preferred set of candidates are essentially a clone set where if you eliminate all but any one of them, the remaining candidate is the majority's 1st choice, and must win. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 19:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||