Difference between revisions of "Talk:CDTT"

From Electowiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
Done, although I'm not sure how useful it is. [[User:KVenzke]]
 
Done, although I'm not sure how useful it is. [[User:KVenzke]]
 +
 +
I have deleted the following sentence: "Whichever of these methods is paired with the CDTT, the combined method necessarily fails the [[Plurality criterion]] and [[Condorcet criterion]]." In my opinion, this sentence ("... necessarily fails ...") could be interpreted as if [[CDTT]], [[Plurality criterion|plurality]], and [[Condorcet criterion|Condorcet]] were incompatible. However, the [[Schulze method]] satisfies the [[CDTT]] criterion, the [[Plurality criterion]], and the [[Condorcet criterion]]. [[User:MarkusSchulze|Markus Schulze]] 23 Jun 2005

Revision as of 06:44, 23 June 2005

It would be helpful to cite the paper where Woodall defines the criterion. James Green-Armytage 21:32, 19 May 2005 (PDT)

It's from a draft version of a paper that hasn't been published. Do you think this makes a difference? Kevin Venzke 11:33, 20 May 2005 (PDT)

Done, although I'm not sure how useful it is. User:KVenzke

I have deleted the following sentence: "Whichever of these methods is paired with the CDTT, the combined method necessarily fails the Plurality criterion and Condorcet criterion." In my opinion, this sentence ("... necessarily fails ...") could be interpreted as if CDTT, plurality, and Condorcet were incompatible. However, the Schulze method satisfies the CDTT criterion, the Plurality criterion, and the Condorcet criterion. Markus Schulze 23 Jun 2005