On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:44:09PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
the problem: our vote tallying method is doing double duty.
solution: split it out.
But as Anthony pointed out, the current proposal has nearly the
exact same properties as if it were split out. (The only exception
is that
Andrew == Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters
Andrew that B voters can cause D beats A.
But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd
rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below D,
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Raul Miller wrote:
Nathanael No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always
Nathanael opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing
Nathanael up to oppose something always count toward quorum.
On Thu, 22 May 2003 13:06:34 -0400, Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ah... then I was confused. Replace M(A,default) = R with
V(A,default) = R and M(A,default)0 The V(A,default =R clause
comes from your proposed A.6.2, and the M(A,default)0 clause comes
from your proposed A.6.3.
On Mon, 26 May 2003 13:42:03 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
Guido Trotter wrote:
If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no
problem with the proposed system, why not add to the current
proposal the fact that the votes cast, altogether, have to be at
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used.
Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases
where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and
On Tue, 27 May 2003 14:02:19 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've been trying to construct an example of perverse results of the
sort I want (where A beats D, B beats D, A beats B, and B wins
because of quorum). All the correct examples (which I can find,
anyway) depend on
On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... and also more likely than if a plain Condorcet method were used.
Which complicates the analysis, because it's easy to construct cases
where B voters can beat A with strategy under both Condorcet+SSD and
Manoj said:
On Tue, 27 May 2003 14:02:19 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've been trying to construct an example of perverse results of the
sort I want (where A beats D, B beats D, A beats B, and B wins
because of quorum). All the correct examples (which I can find,
anyway)
A beats B 40:20
B beats C 40:20
A beats C 40:20
D beats A, B and C 40:20
Which makes D win, rather than A, B or C.
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 10:33:31AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this is not the best strategy. It
could be that the best strategy,
On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent,
how can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2003 03:59:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This whole discussion tells me that the original proposal (with
Manoj's s/quorum/.../ change, for consistency) should be up to that
task.
Cool. All we need is the other sponsors
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always opinion-neutral, under
every defintion.
Trivial counter-example: it's not under mine.
(Quorum is a small group of people that are necessary to make decisions;
normally, they
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:45:31PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I _think_ the same basic strategy applies: Rank the non-default
options sincerely, then insert the default option after your lesser
of evils option.
That doesn't work. Suppose there are three options, and everyone does this.
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:45:31PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
I _think_ the same basic strategy applies: Rank the non-default
options sincerely, then insert the default option after your lesser
of evils option.
That doesn't work. Suppose there are three options,
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:44:09PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
so: the need to get seconds (normally, 5) is in no way, shape, or form a
reflection of the vote tallying method.
That's a non-sensical claim. The current system is exactly equivalent
to having a ballot that consists of any
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 10:44:09PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
the problem: our vote tallying method is doing double duty.
solution: split it out.
But as Anthony pointed out, the current proposal has nearly the
exact same properties as if it were split out. (The only exception
is that
Andrew == Andrew Pimlott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew ? As far as I can see, all you need is enough D voters
Andrew that B voters can cause D beats A.
But if B voters can cause D beats A, how is this not honest? If I'd
rather see B win or no decision made I rang A below D,
Nathanael == Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathanael Raul Miller wrote:
Nathanael No, it's not a quorum system. Quorum is always
Nathanael opinion-neutral, under every defintion. People showing
Nathanael up to oppose something always count toward quorum.
Sam Hartman wrote:
I think I'm willing to agree with you here that quorum is not a great
name for what we have in Manoj's proposal.
i also got hung up on the use of the word ``quorum''.
at first, i saw the word quorum, and i saw that that was not at all what
was going on. i assumed that the
Hi,
Sam Hartman wrote:
And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized
what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a
proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother.
Approvals.
I think that word works well; we already have established that
On Mon, 26 May 2003 13:42:03 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
Guido Trotter wrote:
If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no
problem with the proposed system, why not add to the current
proposal the fact that the votes cast, altogether, have to be at
John == John H Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John after pondering, i came up with another idea tht gives us a
John pure Condorcet/Cloneproof SSD, provides with applicable
John buy-in, and supports supermajorities. please see
John
On Tue, 27 May 2003 22:25:32 +0200, Matthias Urlichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi,
Sam Hartman wrote:
And if you proposed a new name for it that accurately characterized
what it was and removed some confusion, I might second such a
proposal. I might also decide it wasn't worth the bother.
On Tue, 27 May 2003 14:02:19 -0400, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've been trying to construct an example of perverse results of the
sort I want (where A beats D, B beats D, A beats B, and B wins
because of quorum). All the correct examples (which I can find,
anyway) depend on
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 09:48:36PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Seriously, Manoj's system *isn't* a quorum system.
Raul Miller wrote:
It's a per-option quorum. That's different from not being a quorum.
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:33:07PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
No, it's not a
Manoj:
I think I must be missing something major here (sorry:I've had
less than an average of 5 hours of sleep a night for the last 10 days
or so, and in my old age my faculties are failing me)
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:07:00PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yes, you're missing
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 06:31:22PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Here's a generalized example:
* Q-1 (or fewer) of the voters vote C as the only acceptable option:
C = 1
D = 2 default
A = 3
B = 3
* Slightly less than one-half of the remaining voters vote like you.
* Slightly
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Ah, so now it is a matter of determining intent. So, short of
providing code for telepathically determining the voters intent, how
can one cater to people who really find A unacceptable, and are
voting honestly, from people who would consider A
29 matches
Mail list logo
