Talk:Duggan–Schwartz theorem
Latest comment: 2 days ago by CRGreathouse in topic Clarification requested
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
definition please
edit- 4. The system can be manipulated by an optimist or pessimist.
Presumably "optimist" and "pessimist" here do not have their ordinary meaning. —Tamfang (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think "optimist" means "can make a preferred candidate win" and "pessimist" means "can make a non-preferred candidate lose in favor of one of a set of preferred candidates", but the jargon's a little hard to parse. If "anyone but Bush" voters can prevent Bush from winning, that's pessimistic manipulation; and if Gore voters can make Gore win, that's optimistic manipulation. I could be wrong. See page 4 (306) of www.geocities.jp/kiishimizu/pdf/yt-amc0605.pdf for the exact definition. 77.94.232.40 (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Clarification requested
editThe article doesn't seams pretty clear, It left me quite perplexed. "the third condition requires many candidates to "tie" for the win" what exactly is supposed to mean? why tie is between quotations marks? Wikikeyer (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- The third condition is that every candidate who is someone's top choice is a winner. So, for example, if each candidate is a voter and votes for him/herself as the first choice, then the set of winners is just the set of all candidates. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)