Talk:Duggan–Schwartz theorem

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Game theory Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

definition please

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Clarification requested

The 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)[reply]

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)[reply]