Andrew Koenig ark at research.att.com
Tue Feb 11 20:37:26 EST 2003

• Previous message (by thread): ternary operator vote
• Next message (by thread): STV (was Re: ternary operator vote)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

Bengt> But you are bypassing my point. I want to say I'm ok with A,
Bengt> but "hell no" to C. Just a no_change +1 makes it seem like I'm
Bengt> equally ok with A or no change, and indifferent to C.

Bengt> IOW, even allowing only {-1,0,+1} for A-D gives 3**4
Bengt> information states, whereas {0,1} for A-D+No_change gives 2**5
Bengt> : 81 vs 32, so obviously (ISTM) a single no_change is no
Bengt> substitute for the expressiveness of -1,0,+1.

Bengt> It's always (for n>=2 choices) going to be true that 3**n > 2**(n+1).

Did you read the discussion of Condorcet voting on www.electionmethods.org?

-- 
Andrew Koenig, ark at research.att.com, http://www.research.att.com/info/ark

---

• Previous message (by thread): ternary operator vote
• Next message (by thread): STV (was Re: ternary operator vote)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-list mailing list