Talk:Kemeny–Young method

message: The math doesn't work in the example. All rows tally 100 except one.  (Anonymous)
:Awhile back someone vandalized some tally numbers.  Now the tally numbers again sum to 100.  VoteFair (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tally number not correct

message: The current description of reinforcement seems unclear to me.  I much prefer the previous description, which was also sourced.  Why was this change made?  Grover cleveland (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Explanations in an encyclopedia are intended to be much clearer than what is written in academic journals, and the current explanation is much clearer than the previous version.  For example, the previous version was incomplete because it did not say that the two results had to be from the same election/contest.  As for sourced, the source reference remains.  You say the current version is unclear.  What is unclear? VoteFair (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Partitioning of the ballots is a useful way to describe the criteria, but it's not (necessarily) what's relevant in elections.  Consider that in a U.S. Presidential election, if the same ranking occurs in every one of the 50 states, then it is advantageous that the overall ranking matches the unanimous result.  In that case, nobody partitions the ballots. VoteFair (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Advantageous for whom? Can you provide an example that illustrates why the society would be better off? (Feel free to simplify the example; 50 states shouldn't be needed.) It needs to show why this is really advantageous to society rather than some insignificant aesthetic notion of consistency. (There are a slew of such aesthetic notions of consistency and no voting method can satisfy all of them. Advantage on one of these criteria can be cancelled by disadvantage on another, so you'd need to demonstrate a net advantage.) SEppley (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In single-winner cases there is no advantage to society. I'm thinking of future (much-more-advanced) voting situations in which the ranking of candidates (beyond the first-most-popular choice) affects an election/decision outcome. VoteFair (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be clearer about how the order of finish will be used in those situations, and the advantage that satisfaction of Reinforcement would allegedly provide. SEppley (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that this article does not claim any relative level of importance for the Reinforcement criteria, so this question and my reply are not consequential to editing this article.  Having made that disclaimer, I'll point to the software negotiation tool at NegotiationTool.com as an example of an advanced method of voting, which in this case improves the fairness of decisions made by a group of decision-makers (such as in a legislative body). VoteFair (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinforcement

message: It might be interesting to have some discussion of how the K-Y winning sequence could be calculated efficiently.  The brute force method, simply considering every possible sequence, would presumably have a complexity of O(n!) which isn't great.  I presume that there are some algorithms that substantially improve upon it. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The calculation of the Kemeny-Young ranking or the Kemeny-Young winner is NP-hard. Markus Schulze 04:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't mean there aren't algorithms which dramatically improve on the naive one! CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Grover cleveland is correct; there are ways to substantially speed up the calculations. The surveys/polls/elections at VoteFair.org use such faster calculation methods. I'm working on steps that will lead to sharing how that's done. Note that the archives already contain earlier discussions about this topic. VoteFair (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Algorithm