Would Brian's IRNR benefit from an addditional level of recursion?
The current way to eject candidates is to compare range scores, what
if you modify that slightly?
Instead of kicking out the person with the lowest range score you
replace that with:
Kick out the person with the highest range
Breaking a bit with voting methods, I would like to bring up another
issue regarding one's ability to influence politics: suffrage.
As the only one here not legally qualified to vote, I must express
dissatisfaction with the status quo.
There were several historical requirements for being able to
The stalemate continues. In the meantime here is a pro-range argument.
I'm not going to bother to quote ones from CRV. Those have probably
all been discussed ad infinitum.
Impacts of strategic voting:
Ballot compression is less worrisome than offensive order reversal.
There scenarios under
Dear Steve,
in my old post
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-April/012735.html,
some simulations are reporterd. There the following sentence is found:
Judging from who beats whom, max. length, mean length, or sum of
defeats, we get MAM River+
Hmm, only kick out the losingest loser. I kinda think there would
still be discontinuities, but it might be better. Probably worth
trying. Now I just need to code that up and run the diagram code.
Dunno when I'll actually get around to that.
Has anyone checked what happens to regular IRV
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain:
Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter.
Without Draconian sore loser, candidate oppression laws the parties
would have no way of stopping
Greg Nisbet wrote:
Breaking a bit with voting methods, I would like to bring up another
issue regarding one's ability to influence politics: suffrage.
As the only one here not legally qualified to vote, I must express
dissatisfaction with the status quo.
There were several historical
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Brian Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, only kick out the losingest loser. I kinda think there would still be
discontinuities, but it might be better. Probably worth trying. Now I just
need to code that up and run the diagram code. Dunno when I'll actually get
Hi Dave,
--- En date de : Sam 18.10.08, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Given a Condorcet cycle, how does anyone justify awarding a
winner outside?
Two possibilities:
1. to simplify the definition of the method
2. to satisfy other strategy criteria.
Kevin Venzke
Hi Greg,
--- En date de : Dim 19.10.08, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I question what the behavior of AT2R has to do with the
original
topic, but here's my two cents.
With regards to clones:
8 A
7 B
6 C
The A vs B faceoff is correct. Moving on...
8 A
8 A*
7 B
6 C
A clarification:
--- En date de : Dim 19.10.08, Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
In the example mentioned, it didn't seem to me that
anybody had majority
approval, in which case it isn't clear who would win a
runoff.
Actually even if exactly one candidate had majority approval, that
Warren Smith wrote:
1. the right way to compare election methods is Bayesian Regret
(BR). http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html
For a long time I thought this was only applicable for single-winner
voting methods. However, I eventually saw how to do it for
multiwinner methods also:
Hi Raph,
--- En date de : Dim 19.10.08, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Kevin Venzke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I haven't read closely enough. I thought the
method was to simply
have a runoff between the top two approved candidates.
In the
2008/10/19 Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I haven't read closely enough. I thought the method was to simply
have a runoff between the top two approved candidates.
In the example mentioned, it didn't seem to me
Greg Nisbet wrote:
Instant Range-off Voting is an interesting idea. I thought about it once
a while ago too. I didn't renormalize the ballots though, I just set the
co-highest to 100 and the co-lowest to 0 for each ballot as a sanitation
measure. I eventually abadoned it due to
Hi,
--- En date de : Dim 19.10.08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] a
écrit :
That being said, I think the most promising area of
development here is
based around the concept of a conditional
vote that came up a few
threads ago. The idea here being that individual
ballots
Hello Greg,
(I already agree with your arguments. I'm rolling them at another
question.)
Greg Nisbet wrote:
As a brief overview, I was more criticizing the motives of people than
suggesting a particular plan. Any plan that some person touts changing
society in manner X shouldn't really be
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thoughts on primaries were challenged. Let me explain:
Primaries may be the rational response to FPTP. It doesn't matter.
Without Draconian sore loser,
Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Breaking a bit with voting methods, I would like to bring up another
issue regarding one's ability to influence politics: suffrage.
As the only one here not legally qualified to vote, I must express
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually even if exactly one candidate had majority approval, that would
not guarantee that they would win a runoff.
It would depend on strategy. However, if exactly one candidate has
majority approval and nobody else does,
Sorry, forgot to add:
It is possible that between the main election and the runoff, voter
opinions would change.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Iterative systems are based on conditional votes, meaning their
relative values change with regard to what has happened. For
example, your vote shifting to
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some
candidates who can disregard primary results and some who can't. It
only works for
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Dan Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
I agree with you on 4 (Criminal Record). If criminals are having an
effect on the voting system, then you have to [sic] many people in prison.
No, it simply means that your elections are /that/ close. If,
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:30 AM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it depends on how popular the candidate is. There would be some
candidates who
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting point...
Will there be factorial as many candidates?
No, but there is a point of decreasing returns. Is 10 options is
better than 1 option, but 100 options isn't that much better than 10.
Since the voters
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
artificial monopoly on power.
Do you consider making them legally compulsory (sore
I have an idea for a new 3-slot voting method:
*Voters fill out 3-slot ratings ballots, default rating is bottom-most
(indicating least preferred and not approved).
Interpreting top and middle rating as approval, disqualify all candidates
with an approval score lower than their
Greg Nisbet wrote:
=I think my dismissal is warranted. I trust society to represent its
own interests more than some external source would. I am not saying
dismiss every method that does so, but count involuntary changes to
society against it.
My only proposal is to allow individuals to
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Greg Nisbet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because they cannot even run otherwise. I know it isn't the same as a
gun to your head, but it wouldn't even occur if they didn't have an
artificial
Parties could not tolerate voters making THEIR OWN choices - but it took
three strikes to fire Vito!
Original Message
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:32:59 -0400
From: Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This law had what seems like a simple purpose - Republicans and Democrats
were
Your suggested possibilities had best have STRONG arguments to overpower
known facts:
EVERY member of the cycle has been compared with each candidate outside,
with the cycle members being voted better liked by the voters in EVERY such
comparison.
DWK
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:39:15 +
This topic has inspired an ocean of words - too many to respond to in
detaii. I will respond based on my memory of New York State law - I
believe close enough to be useful.
Elections in which the voter can only name one candidate, such as FPTP,
desperately need primaries to help each party
33 matches
Mail list logo
