On 8/22/08, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, that's true for any single-seat district, FPTP or not.
Right, I was thinking single-seaters.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On 8/22/08, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Finland where the number of candidates is relatively high some less
obvious candidates may have some trouble getting in to the lists but on the
other hand some well known figures (that have become popular (and respected)
in other areas than
Raph Frank wrote:
I had a similar though previously.
It was based on a legislature rather than individual voters.
I called it 'consumable votes'.
Here is one example, though there was a fair few versions.
Juho wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:10 , Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
The extreme would be a voting system where people just say how much
they agree with an opinion, for all relevant opinions, and then the
system picks the maximally representative assembly. Such a method is
not desirable, I
On 8/22/08, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:18 , Raph Frank wrote:
Thus, I don't see them as massively different ... the trees just add more
structure and reduce the freedom.
The intention was not to reduce freedom. If a voter wants to bypass the
default inheritance
On 8/22/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One problem of a straightforward every candidate gets p voting money units
at the beginning of each block of time is that, on one hand, the situation
may be serious enough that one needs to pass more than p units' worth. In
that
Dave Ketchum wrote:
You claim that many fragments can be done by specialized machines.
AGREED, though I do not agree that they can do it any better than a
normal computer - which has equivalent capability.
In a technical capacity, of course not. Since a computer is
Turing-complete, it can do
Juho wrote:
I could accept also methods where the voting power of each
representative is different. The good part is that such a parliament
would reflect the wishes of the voters more accurately than a parliament
where all the representatives have the same voting power. Maybe one
could force
Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, this is not intended to be used in a zillion precincts - just to
validate the programs.
OK. Well if you don't care about validating the election outcome
accuracy, and just want to verify the
Raph Frank wrote:
On 8/22/08, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Finland where the number of candidates is relatively high some less
obvious candidates may have some trouble getting in to the lists but on the
other hand some well known figures (that have become popular (and respected)
in other
On 8/22/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I had in mind was something like this: Say there's a single-winner
election where the plurality winner has 35% support. Then those voters
effectively got 0.5 (+1) worth of the vote with only 0.35 mass. The total
voting power of
On 8/22/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The general structure of a delegate cascade is actually a cyclic
graph. But cycles can occur only at the bottom of each casacade,
where they result in pools. Pools are equivalent to roots, so d'Hondt
(etc.) should still work.
Maybe a
Juho wrote:
Ok, in a stable system with well established connections between nodes
that stability will increase. I was concerned about the ability of
individuals to move large masses of votes (larger than what they got
directly in the election) by just their own individual decision. Maybe
Federal certification? The many horror stories tell us either:
Equipment is failing that has never been certified or
The certifiers are signing off without bothering to look
seriously for the many defects in the offered systems,
Thus the certification process needs overhauling.
I
14 matches
Mail list logo
