Talk:Schulze method
 |
Schulze method is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||
|
|||||
| WikiProject Politics | (Rated B-class, Mid-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
A Wikipedia contributor, MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. |
 Archives |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| Threads older than 3 months may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Contents |
[edit] The Lakehead v Thunder Bay
I find this article a bit confusing. The Lakehead beats Thunder Bay in the head to head. So should "Thunder Bay --(23679)--> The Lakehead" be the other way round? Bejjer (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification question
Firstly this article, defines some if it's terms (such as P), by the terms themselves, which is difficult to understand.
Secondly, help me elucidate something.
if 45 people voted for 5 candidates {a,b,c,d,e} , marking them by ordered preference {1..5}, then why all this redundant math? Is it not the same as summing up the score per candidate and finding out that E has won...?
This is equivalent to each voter having 15 (=1+2+3+4+5) points to spread across 5 candidates, sum each candidate score (no graphs needed), and get the ordered list the voters created. what's the advantage of these extra steps ? what's the motivation, and what do they reveal? getting a single winner out of the 5 can be done much simpler.--Namaste@? 15:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- The method, you are talking about, is the Borda count. The Borda count violates the majority criterion and the independence of clones criterion. Markus Schulze 19:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Comparison table
I am willing to put more columns in the comparison table, "resolvability", "MinMax set" and "prudence". Resolvability was mainly because I added Copeland to the table. MinMax because it is the main difference between Schulze and ranked pairs. Prudence is also in Schulze's paper, which I am using as source.
But I don´t know the row values for all the methods. Is there a problem if I leave some of them blank?
[edit] MinMax set and prudence criteria
Stubs for these 2 criteria would be nice too.
