Draft talk:Geller-STV

Geller-IRV, Smith criterion, Condorcet criterion

Dear Bluefoxicy, you have added Geller-IRV to the table "Comparison of Schulze to preferential voting systems". You have added that Geller-IRV satisfies the Smith criterion and violates the Condorcet criterion. This doesn't make much sense since the Smith criterion implies the Condorcet criterion. Please clarify. Markus Schulze 09:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Typographical error. John Moser (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Geller-IRV, later-no-help

Dear Bluefoxicy, you have added Geller-IRV to the table "Comparison of Schulze to preferential voting systems". You have added that Geller-IRV satisfies later-no-help. I have changed this to a "fail". Here is an example: There are three candidates A, B, C. A wins. Suppose some voters change their votes from B to BC. Then it can happen that B and C now form a solid coalition of more than half of the voters and that the winner is changed from A to B. Markus Schulze 19:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, typographical error. It mathematically can't satisfy later-no-help because a later-ranked candidate can receive enough Borda points to be raised in the elimination order, and so your candidate may be eliminated first and the lower-ranked candidate now eliminated later. John Moser (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Geller-IRV, Quota Borda system

Dear Bluefoxicy, you have added Geller-IRV to the table "Comparison of Schulze to preferential voting systems". However, it seems to me that Geller-IRV is the same as single-winner QBS. As QBS is older and more well-known than Geller-IRV, I recommend that Geller-IRV should be renamed to QBS is that table. Markus Schulze 19:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A point I haven't considered. Perhaps note them both as the same system, as with Participation/Consistency?