On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 01:03:47 -0400 Brian Olson wrote:
On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:30 AM, AllAbout Voting wrote:
So I will ask a pair of constructive questions:
1. Can Condorcet voting be compatible with precinct level optical scan
systems? (which many election integrity advocates consider to be
Mike Frank wrote:
Hello, I was thinking of building a free public web service, perhaps
operated by a charitable NPO, that would allow organizations (including
perhaps small governments) to operate online elections in a way that
offers some sophisticated modern security features.
In addition
On your site, you also include a brief attacking multiwinner STV, at
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/ReplyMemoJG10-6-08.pdf. Do you agree with
the argument presented?
--- On Mon, 10/6/08, Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Fwd: FW: IRV
FYI,
Update - the hearing on IRV has been postponed on the request of the
City of Minneapolis.
My affidavit for Plaintiffs suing to stop the adoption of Instant
Runoff Voting (IRV) in Minneapolis, MN, as well as Plaintiffs' briefs
in the legal case, are posted at
http://electionmathematics.org
Hallo,
Kathy Dopp wrote (7 Oct 2008):
My affidavit for Plaintiffs suing to stop the
adoption of Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in
Minneapolis, MN, as well as Plaintiffs' briefs
in the legal case, are posted at
http://electionmathematics.org
at the top of the Instant Runoff Voting page.
I
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:03 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Aaron Armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Fwd: FW: IRV Challenge - Press Announcement
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 3:46 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
I browsed through the links of that site. It is
interesting to see that FairVote Minnesota is
planning to use the claim, that all election
methods violate monotonicity, even at court.
They write: The non-monotonicity argument is
irrelevant
Dear Jonathan Lundell,
you wrote (7 Oct 2008):
Their specific argument, though, is that the existing
two-round plurality system is non-monotonic; they don't
actually rely on the argument that all voting systems
are non-monotonic.
Well, the second paper is more general. Here they use
Arrow's
Hello, Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful critique.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would this system work? I guess you could use blind signatures to
submit the actual votes, but how would it ensure the voters that their votes
are
But this must be true of any multiwinner system when the voters do not
fall into blocs that are evenly divisible by the number of seats,
including (especially) plurality when considered by reference to the
overall popular vote. And as for single-winner systems, as bad as IRV is,
it's massively
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Dear Jonathan Lundell,
you wrote (7 Oct 2008):
Their specific argument, though, is that the existing
two-round plurality system is non-monotonic; they don't
actually rely on the argument that all voting systems
are non-monotonic.
Well, the
11 matches
Mail list logo
