From: Narins, Josh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] How to proceed
Even if you are dead-set on IRV, Approval, or Voodoo-
MindReading Tallies, the way to get this done is to have
the NAS study the issue.
That's why we need a great writer. We need to petition
Congress.
I think you've
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:18:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Rob LeGrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Interesting article
It's a bit off-topic, but I'm interested to know what
those on this list (especially those of a progressive
ilk) think of the following article, called
]
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: [EM] More on Gerrymander prevention
Josh's proposal is indeed a very slick idea. It groups
people according to social and economic criteria. It would
work out
From: Adam Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [EM] More on Gerrymander prevention
Josh's proposal is indeed a very slick idea. It groups
people according to social and economic criteria. It would
work out well where I live -- on the west side of Puget
Sound. Seattle is not far away, in
From: Alex Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] IRV in Australia (was How to Vote in Approval)
I poked around on the web site of the Australian
Parliament (www.aph.gov.au). The House of Representatives
(elected from single-member constituencies with IRV) has 2
main parties, a handful of
From: Joe Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Automatic redistricting
Tony Simmons writes:
'Perhaps the trick is to let the voters create their own
districts.' [Rather than geography- or party- defined
partitioning of the electorate] 'it might be better to
think of
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] A polite spelling correction
Anthony, that isn't how hilarious is spelled. I don't care
if people mis-spell words. No doubt I sometimes do also.
But in statements like the above, what makes the mis-
spelling so hilarious is the
It might be difficult to base automatic districting on the
important considerations. While we tend to think of
districts as geographical (perhaps because that's what they
utlimately are), social distinctions are just as important.
For example, we expect that districts will recognize
political
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Working with journalists
That's helpful. Ideally, there should be some back and
forth on these things that don't have urgent deadlines, so
that the final version that gets published is acceptable
to both author and publisher, or
From: Alex Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Working with journalists
Anthony Simmons wrote:
I tried to explain that petroleum is a source of new energy, while
hydrogen gas contains energy that has to be put there by us from some
other source.
Maybe this is just a semantic issue
From: Alex Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Approval Voting Op-Ed material
As per Anthony's advice, I expanded the pro-AV essay to
800 words, more appropriate for an op-ed. I tried to trim
it to serve as a letter, but I couldn't decide what to
trim. I flesh out a few points, and
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] NYTimes.com Article: French Twist: A Fair Way to Pick
Oscars?
From my experience this is pretty typical of journalists
that think that they can edit content without knowing
diddley about the content.
Don't be surprised if this
From: Narins, Josh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE:Zimbabwe [EM]
However, I really don't know who the MPDC (the opposition)
was.
MDC. Movement for Democratic Change.
I knew that much. What I don't know is what they stand
for, or, what sort of backgrounds their leaders have. Who
funds
From: Narins, Josh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Stupid People Tricks
Dearest and Kind GentleFolk;
What do stupid people do?
They hire PR firms.
General Dostum hired one to clean up his image as the
murderous, thuggish, rapacious pillager of northern
Afghanistan, and *he* expects it
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Re: IRV wins big in SF and Vermont
By the way, how did your article turn out, that you wrote
about a year ago?
The local Green newsletter published about a third of it,
with a short rebuttal from the local IRV committee chair,
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IRV unconsitutiona;?
Anthony said that equal protection under
the law means that eveyone's favorite
candidate must win, or that it could be
so interpreted. Pehaps by Anthony.
Perhaps Mike is not familiar with the literary device of
had someone like Anthony Simmons whose mom was an
English professor to edit a compendium of the best efforts
of theirs (and of others that want to contribute), it
would be quite a book!
I'd be happy to edit or otherwise contribute to such an
effort, and I'm also thinking it's about time we did
Sayeth Alex Small:
Subject: [EM] Approval Voting in Action?
ALso, as for the comment of Anthony Simmons that AV is
more natural than IRV to people accustomed to plurality,
we also have a very strong notion of Majority Rule.
Normally our elections produce majorities, because
plurality
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Approval Voting in Action?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote-
Why settle for a majority? Use Unanimous Instant Runoff
Voting. With ordinary IRV, we stop the vote counting with
the round that gives one candidate a majority, while in UIRV,
rounds continue until
From: Alex Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:[EM] Settle for how much less?
[...]
The IRV initiative dilemma: If it loses many people will
conclude that the public doesn't want election reform. If
it passes we'll be stuck with a second-rate reform (or a
step backwards, depending on
Anybody else interested in trying to speak out on this?
Despite our lack of consensus on many things, I think
almost all of us feel that IRVing is far from optimal in
single winner elections.
There's an IRV bill in Washington? I do know there's a bill
to replace the open primary with
From: Adam Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] World Series and EC
But most importantly, I think the analogy is a poor one,
because we expect and desire this inconsistency in
baseball, and sports in general. Not only is the World
Series inconsistent due to the multi-game format (why
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donald Davison)
Subject: [EM] 02/02/02 - Alexander, don't get stuck in a `Time Warp':
If you are of normal intelligence, then sometime in you
life you will come full circle and return to IRVing. Most
do, but some get stuck in a `Time Warp' and never get
beyond the
From: Adam Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] World Series and EC
But most importantly, I think the analogy is a poor one,
because we expect and desire this inconsistency in
baseball, and sports in general. Not only is the World
Series inconsistent due to the multi-game format (why
From: Alexander Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Electoral College and Minority Vetoes
I can't see that there's much difference between allowing a
minority to exercise power against the popular will on the
one hand, and giving them the veto on the other.
I'm taking a lemon and trying
From: Alexander Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] World Series and EC
Regarding the post arguing that the world series was close
in number of games won but not in number of home runs:
I had this argument by e-mail with Alan Natapoff, who has
argued that the EC gives more power per
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] The Electoral College (was Interesting use of
Borda count)
Both Blake and Anthony have pointed out actualities that
the Banzhaf index doesn't detect: Blake because of
correlations among the blocks, and Anthony because of
distinctive
I would be surprised if they actually allow much of a forum for
dissenting opinion, but I could be wrong. I wonder how many IRV critics
it would take to make a difference there?
If it's like most such organizations, it would be more trouble to shift
the balance than to set up a new
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fascinating website
Well, you certainly are nothing if not persistent.
By the way, sharia is Islamic law, not a hilarious disease.
Anthony said:
I was doing something worthwhile (reading an article on the
spread of sharia in Nigeria)
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Richard Moore wrote:
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I don't know what sharia is, but, whether or not there's actually
a 3rd world disease by that name, I'm sorry for Anthony that he
thinks 3rd world disease is something to joke about.
No, it's a religious/political
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] The Electoral College (was Interesting use of Borda count)
Interesting discussion of power index, but kind of misses
what I was talking about, which is that when people talk
about the power of the states within the EC, they tend to
equate
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Interesting Website
I checked out the website you referred to, but are you
sure that , when electing an executive who has the power
to veto the decisions of a legislature, it's more
important to elect someone who has a large 1st-choice
I don't recall anyone mentioning this site, so I
thought I'd point to it in case it's not generally
known. It's called Accurate Democracy, and is
located at http://accuratedemocracy.com/a_intro.htm.
It appears to be created by the same person who did
the Loring Ensemble Rules and a host of other
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Interesting use of Borda count
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
D- The smallest States each have 3 Electoral College votes
(minimum 1 U.S.
Rep seat plus 2 U.S. Senate seats-- U.S.A. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1)
even
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Advantages of CR style ballots
Each voter marks a smudge to the right of each candidate's
name. The smudgier the smudge, the higher the rating. The
mechanical smudge reader automatically calibrates to each
ballot by giving
Subject: [EM] FBC ambiguity language for EM
The quotes here were from a message that didn't use quote
marks, so when I started trimming it, it quickly became
impossible to recall who said what. So I'm probably replying
to several people, identity lost.
Ok, then informal differs from formal
Interesting use of Borda count. Note that one voter insisted
on interpreting it as CR. (There was obviously no strategic
reason to vote the way she did.)
Terrorist attacks top news story in AP poll
SURVEY: Journalists put Afghan war in No. 2 spot
David Crary; The Associated Press
From
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Advantages of CR style ballots
Anthony's account of practical considerations is very
interesting.
Based on those practical considerations here's a
suggestion on how to design an unconstrained CR ballot:
Each voter marks a smudge
Forest said (extracted from complete original message below):
Constraints tend to limit the information efficiency of
the ballot.
Here's another way of looking at the efficiency of the
ballot. We don't want it to become too efficient because
ballots are very poor storage media. Or put
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] IRV vs Plurality Vote with a Runoff
Does the fact that IRV uses a preference ballot,
instead of a repeated ballot, make it less manipulatable?
Whatever you believe the answer is, can you prove it by
example or argument?
Well, about a year
From: Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] CR style ballots for Ranked Preferences
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 06:14:41 Anthony Simmons wrote, in part:
We have an interesting institution in the U.S., which
illustrates the importance of arbitrary boundaries: The
electoral college
From: Jobst Heitzig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] CR style ballots for Ranked Preferences
However, what I can't see is why this should be of any
importance. Instead, it just shows that in order to
determine the winner, one cannot divide the electorate
into groups but must
From: Jobst Heitzig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] CR style ballots for Ranked Preferences
I think what most people mean when saying that Condorcet
methods are
INCONSISTENT
(a bad name in my opinion since it contains no information
about how it's defined but instead contains a
From: Richard Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Fluffy the Dog and group strategy
Reminds me of something I wrote a couple months back.
Someone posted an example, which if I recall was very
similar to Fluffy. I replied that it may be impossible to
tell from the ballots alone
set at the top of the lists, then the total Borda
scores should put them at the top of the composite. (Since
for every candidate in the Smith set, each score is higher
than for every nonmember, totals should also be higher. Same
for CW.)
Anthony Simmons wrote:
For example, use ranked ballots
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Maximum Consent
Although a preference ballot may have a greater quantity
of information, the Approval ballot has the most relevant
information for consent of the governed: i.e. which
candidates could the voter willingly give
From: Richard Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Maximum Consent
Anthony Simmons wrote:
Ideally, if we wanted each vote to contain
as much information as possible, we should try to create the
system so that half of the votes are yes and half no.
That's actually possible. Set
From: LAYTON Craig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [EM] Majority Rule
Anthony Simmons wrote:
I'm not sure this is relevant, since I don't think I'm really
addressing Craig's point, but from my perspective as an
American, the Australian political process is very alien.
According
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Responses to some of Forest's ideas
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consensus (100 percent agreement) is in utopia-land.
From the point of view of maximum possible consent, the
Approval Winner is closer to the 100 percent
From: Blake Cretney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Majority Rule
forced into coalitions to create a two-party system. It should be noted
that much of this system is based on traditions and motions and regulations
passed by parliament, rather than on the constitution or common law, so
From: Bart Ingles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Responses to some of Forest's ideas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See *consent of the governed* in the second paragraph of the U.S.A.
Declaration of Independence.
Democracy means majority rule --- as far as elections are concerned.
From: Bart Ingles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Majority Rule
Anthony Simmons wrote:
Says who? Maybe as far as two-candidate elections are concerned. The
phrase 'majority rule' itself seems historically recent.
And perhaps a bit out of place in a context such as STV,
which
From: Bart Ingles
Subject: [EM] Approval mention
http://readjacobs.com/
Yow! Good work.
What is readjacobs? They didn't have any explanation of
who's doing it, or why.
From: Richard Moore
Subject: Re: [EM] Thoughts on majority potential simulations
Anthony,
Some, but not all issues, are going to have the
correlation you are talking about. Given that there are
two issues that are really just facets of some third
issue, we can just let that third issue
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Yet another IRV problem
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Anthony Simmons wrote:
snip
It's all a big mystery to most people.
That turned on a light for me. It suddenly dawned on me
that the reason that all of those FairVote people I talked
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Florida 2001 Election Reform Law
Although it doesn't say so in the article you passed along,
as I recall the bill also prohibits lever machines. And yet
those have been shown to be more reliable than the optiscan
machines. The Florida law is the typical
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] IRV inconsistency
Here's an inconsistency of IRV that I wish somebody had
told me about before I submitted my article to the Green
Voice.
[...]
Why is IRV considered better than plurality when it fails
this consistency test and also
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
Subject: [EM] Anthony on mathematics and logic
I'm not going to respond to each paragraph individually.
There are too many, and too much of it is devoted to
pointless machinations. I will just respond to each topic.
On whether Richard's diagram shows something of interest
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Re: Tyranny of the Majority
Mr. Simmons wrote-
Don't you think it's a bit strange to be complaining about
how I'm attacking democracy??? Perhaps you're equating
majority rule and democracy? They're not the same thing, you
know.
---
D- From my
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
Mr. Simmons wrote-
For this reason, I don't consider it sufficient that the
majority have its way.
D- Either the majority or the minority has its way (since
unanimous votes are few and far between) (pending utopia
May 2001, Anthony Simmons wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
How often to 50 percent majorities tyrannize themselves
(for decades or centuries) as compared to thousands of
years of tyranny by monarchies / oligarchies ???
How often do absolute
the political consequences into account.
Anthony Simmons wrote:
Here's the question I would ask: Does the majority tend to
tyrannize the minority?
It's exceptionally bad taste to even begin to mention it,
but I suspect that in Nazi Germany the majority of Aryans
tyrannizing the minority
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority
D- How often do 50 percent majorities tyrannize themselves
(for decades or centuries) as compared to thousands of
years of tyranny by monarchies / oligarchies ???
Mr. Simmons wrote-
How often do absolute monarchs tyrannize
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mathemaatics isn't aesthetic
Twit Anthony is saying that if I don't want millions of
voters forced to dump their favorite because of the
lesser-of-2-evils problem, then I have to agree with the
majority on everything. Anthony, more than
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Re: democratic aggregation of utility
As Forest has discussed just recently, equal vote does not
imply equal utility. This presents us with the problem of
deciding whether we want to promote maximum total utility,
equal utility, or something else, all the
in people's brains? Personally,
I think the real-space model that is so ubiquitous in the
social sciences (e.g. factor analysis) is more of a metaphor.
Forest
On Thu, 3 May 2001, Anthony Simmons wrote:
Nice thing about median, it isn't affected by running the
scale through a monotonic transform
From: Bart Ingles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] democratic aggregation of utility
Forest Simmons wrote:
Simple average won't do the job, because the riches of one billionaire
compensate for the zero income of an hundred thousand peasants
in the mean
living wage calculation,
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Replying to Anthony
Anthony said:
You're not telling me that people routinely object to any
post not explicitly justified by direct reference to concerns
actually stated by large numbers of voters, are you?
Then I said:
Are you
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Answering a relevance question
Anthony (or was it Martin?) replied:
I see. So when you discuss WDSC and FBC, etc., you consider
them relevant because they are at the forefront of the
voters' minds?
I reply:
By George, I do believe
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
Subject: Re: Richard the diagram
I think it should be pointed out that distances from lines
drawn on a diagram is not something different from the
concerns of the voter-on-the-street, but merely a more
precise picture of it.
Fine. But I must have missed the part
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
Subject: [EM] Richard the diagram
I think it should be pointed out that distances from lines
drawn on a diagram is not something different from the
concerns of the voter-on-the-street, but merely a more
precise picture of it. Rather like the image, in an electron
From: Richard Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Cranor's method (was unranked IRV, cumulative, etc.)
[This message is not in displayable format]
Richard,
Some of your messages are showing in the digest
as nothing but the error message you see above.
From: Forest Simmons
Subject: Re: The None of the Above Chorus:
At the other extreme, suppose we have 100 candidates for a
single position. Shouldn't at least one of them be
outstanding enough to get more than 50% approval? If not,
I would say, What a dismal bunch of clown clones!
One
From: Joe Weinstein
Subject: Re: [EM] Five Slots and Cranor
Many discussions - here in EM-list postings as elsewhere -
presume wrongly that voters care only about
instrumentality and therefore that optimal voter
'strategy' concerns only instrumentality and not also
effective expression.
From: Blake Cretney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV Psychology
True, but Green party supporters may reason that although
IRV may give the victory to the Republicans, it might also
give it to the Greens. It all depends on the second choice
of the Democrats, in your kind of example.
to be capable of satisfying resolution.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:31:56
Anthony Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But to the extent that there is a social decision to abide by
an election outcome in any meaningful sense, doesn't there
have to be a consequent action of some sort? Even
From: Blake Cretney
Subject: [EM] Social Utility
[snip]
But let's say you have a group of people voting on whether
the universe will always expand, or will eventually
contract. This is an objective question. The correct
answer is independent of the will of the voters, and to
answer it,
ore if they
are confronted with the fact the way that IRV shifts the
spoiler effect to situations in which they have a chance to
win. Basically, they are taking a stance that depends on
losing. Psychologically, that's a tough way to run a
movement.
Forest
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Anthony Simmons wrote:
From: Arnold B. Urken
Subject: Re: [EM] Voting on matters of pure fact
Hi,
I have been following this list with interest and would
like to point out that there is a literature (going back
to Condorcet) about the effects of a voting method on the
group probability of making a correct
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I Like Irving)
Subject: [EM] The None of the Above Chorus:
Dear Tom and Tony,
I join your chorus, I also like None-of-the-Above.
The concept of None of the Above is used in some countries. The more I
think about it the more I feel that it has a place. It
From: Forest Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] IRV Psychology
When you tell them that there are other situations in
which IRV would give them strategic incentives to vote
Gore above Nader, and that Approval would never do that,
they tend to think of those situations as rare, if not
From: LAYTON Craig
Subject: RE: [EM] Some brief campaign argument
1) Approval is unique in that a sincere vote is always the
best strategic vote. However, this is because you are
only allowed to express a single layer of preferences - if
you're preference is ABC, you can only express the
From: Tom Ruen
Subject: Re: [EM] 3 choices/5 voters Example
I like the idea of including a None-of-the Above choice
(explicit or implicit) and if this "choice" wins the
election, then all the candidates are discarded and a new
election must be held with all new candidates! This is the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Instant Pairwise Elimination Runoff
I'm not simply bashing John Q. Voter about just
anything having to do with elections, but
specifically bashing him about the way he will
choose a new voting method. In the matter of how
the public makes decisions, I'm
ere you go :)
So Forest's new system should be called SuperVote
EM, and STV should be called SuperVote Plus with
DoofusGuard*.
(* failure to follow instructions may result in
election of imbeciles)
The Federalist would have read a lot differently
if they'd had television in those days.
Anthony S
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
Subject: [EM] output ranking
Certainly, expecting a ranking that carries the
same credibility as the winner would be quite
different from just choosing one winner. On the
other hand, suppose we wanted to ask who came in
second in the recent Presidential election.
There may
Subject: [EM] A pairwise elimination satisfying
SFC,SDSC
INSTANT PAIRWISE ELIMINATION RUNOFF
I know this is going to sound really silly, but with
the majority of the electorate, the most important
factor is what it's called. "Intant Runoff" sounds
like it was chosen by an advertising
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
Subject: [EM] Voter's Choice final Approval scores.
But does anyone agree that it would be interesting to add
the option of voting on the absolute merit of the methods
too? That wasn't part of my nomination, and so I won't add
it to the ballot unless someone else wants
From: Martin Harper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Approval for Tom
Approval for Tom, and others who reckon one-man-
one-vote is solely referring to how an invisible
genie moves your vote around, and is absolutely
sacred - I call it Instant Approval Poll and
Plurality Voting.
[...]
From: Tom Ruen
Subject: Re: [EM] Unranked IRV versus Approval - divergent winners exist!
My main defense for and attraction to Unranked-IRV is that
it satisfies the one vote/seat rule of our current
elections. It is a good compromise in my opinion since it
is just another way to count
Martin Harper wrote:
One, voters of the top two candidates, D and E, would
not march lockstep and vote for the same second choice A,
and then the same third choice B, etc.
With 17 voters, it's entirely possible simply by random chance.
If supporters of D and E share similar
From: Tom Ruen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] One vote per voter
Anthony,
I appreciate your defense for approval. I'm
not surrendering full-vote Approval as a good
concept. I agree with your defense for one
vote per candidate in approval.
Well, I'm not sure I was defending approval
From: "Tom Ruen" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Unranked-IRV
I've been interested recently in using
approval voting to end the spoiler effect of
plurality elections, but I get objections to
the approval process, most strongly from Don
Davison, that everyone only should get one
vote, and
From: Enrique Bird
Subject: [EM] Remove
According to Conventional Wisdom, responding to
the "remove" address in spam (junk email) is more
likely to confirm that your addresss is still
active, and encourage more spam. And it does
seem unlikely that anyone who dumps trash in
other
From: Tom Ruen
Subject: Re: [EM] Bad Condorcet winners?
1. IRV is less demanding because it never uses
lower rankings on a ballot until all higher
candidates are eliminated. Therefore voters
don't have to think very hard about lower
choices. However when an election is a close
3-way
the election methods . . .
Reminds me of the premiere performance of Maurice
Ravel's Bolero (I missed it myself, but the story
survived). Toward the end, a lady stood up and
yelled "He's crazy!" After the concert, Ravel
told her "I'm glad someone understood."
- Original Message
So far these are the nominations, but let
me know if I've missed one or more:
[...]
A new suggestion for the poll topic: "What
should the poll topic be?" (since it does
have to be decided anyway)
Repl to: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Richard's frontrunners example
Forgive me for butting in; I've been skulking in the corners
until now.
Now I accept that it does seem that (not A) implies (if A,
then B). When A isn't true, I've heard people say things
like "If A,
98 matches
Mail list logo
