reason too.
But maybe to Blake Rob L.G., other things are more important, and
no one can tell someone else what should be most important to them.
Beauty elegance give voting systems appeal, but, by themselves, they
aren't enough, if we want the method to do, or not do, certain things.
Mike Ossipoff
. SU probably
qualifies as a fundamental standard.
Aside from majority rule, I criticize Margins for its failures of
the fundamental standard of not making people need to vote drastically
insincerely, concealing their actual wishes from the voting system
and from eachother thereby.
Mike Ossipoff
, is why we call it a preference between B and A.
If you prefer B to A, then you'd rather elect B than A.
If we elect A or B, you prefer that it be B. Electing A and not B
violates a voted preference of that 60% majority. Which part of that
doesn't Blake understand?
Mike Ossipoff
. Bush isn't legitimately president.
An unelected nonpresident is going to use this country's
resources to commit a war crime that world opinion is overwhelmingly
against.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2
,
that is. Blake doesn't, and that's fine. But Blake is dogmatically
claiming that others' standards are wrong and his are right, and that's
where he's wrong.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http
that
the public might have a very difficult time choosing a good rank-count.
That's why I claim that Approval is the better public proposal. We
won't have all these people with different theories on how to count
Approval votes. There's only one way to count Approval votes: Add them
up.
Mike Ossipoff
Adam Tarr wrote:
Tom McIntyre Wrote:
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
101: A
50: BAC
100: CBA
About 60% of the voters have indicated that they'd rather elect
B than A. And so margins elects A.
WV counts, keeps, honors the BA majority. A has a majority defeat that
wv doesn't lose or erase
to
demonstrate that that is so.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc
to the programs. Simpler to just not have it.
If someone wants an interactive count program to count margins Condorcet,
they can use Blake's program.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http
the
Condorcet tally matrix from a voted ballots list and then run the
Condorcet_DD.pl with the --rank_wv command. It has line commands to request
RP
and BeatpathWSinner (SSD) outcomes.
I reply:
Isn't that a margins Condorcet program at a margins Condorcet website?
Mike Ossipoff
of Approval.
The websites with voting system criteria that I referred to above are:
http://www.electionmethods.org
(at the technical evaluation page)
and
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html
(at the defensive strategy criteria page)
Mike Ossipoff
Marquette, Wisconsin?
I reply:
Though I haven't had an opportunity to re-read the copy, I'm certain
that it still says what it said before. However, it's possible that
I somehow inexplicably mistakenly believed that it said Wisconsin
when it actually said Michigan.
Mike Ossipoff
of the book, in which different Marquettes were named
as the place where Nanson was used in the U.S.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
I was sure that Hoag Hallett said Marquette, Wisconsin.
Sorry if I got it wrong. Maybe different editions of the book
say different states.
Is Marquette, Michigan listed or shown in atlases?
Mike Ossipoff
_
STOP MORE SPAM
by Condorcet's
method, even if Condorcet mentioned Copeland at one point.
But let's leave that sort of topic to William Safire.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features
because, like most methods, inlcuding lots of
Condorcet Criterion methods, Nanson doesn't meet any of our defensive
strategy criteria.
I'm just saying how these terms have been used so far.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e
is the literal
interpretation, but that it's perfectly possible that Condorcet would
have done Smith//PC or SSD if he carried out his proposal.
I'll resume this reply tomorrow--
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2
?
No, you're wrong. And I couldn't find the place in your quotation
where I'd defined the median in terms of the Approval voting system.
You continued:
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote :
Steph wrote:
I do not hate Middle, I just dislike under and over representation
when it comes from the system...
In a sense every
You wrote:
Stephanie and Mike,
I have enjoyed your debate and wonder if you thought of looking at defining
a median in terms of the distribution of individual preference orderings
represented by a beta distribution. Ths approach is rigorous and flexible.
It might also accomodate a
Mike Ossipoff wrote (16 Jan 2003):
But in all Condorcet versions, a candidate wins if
he has no pairwise decisions for or against him.
Markus replied:
Of course, that's not true.
Example:
A = B
A = C
A = D
A = E
A = F
B C
B D
B E
B F
C D
C E
C F
D E
D F
E F
Candidate
that expects to be outpolled by the opposite extreme
isn't going to also expect to have a majority. They vote for Middle,
which is B. And B wins.
It would seem that in this plausible example, your relative margins
is the method that lets the addition of the extreme candidate change
the outcome.
Mike
be:
Keep the defeat in which i beats j if there's no beatpath from j
to i among the entire set of qualified defeats and kept defeats.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy
, and some of those have no
pairwise victories, and some have a pairwise victory, then the tie
should consist of the one(s) who have/has a pairwise victory.
Of course that only matters in small comittees, or maybe sometimes in
organizations.
Mike Ossipoff
criterion
in terms of some standard that an appreciable number of people accept
as fundamental.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For more
prefer to discuss with Donald and Craig, it is your prerogative.
I reply:
Should that be taken as a call for assistance from Don Craig?
Anyway, I've never evaded discussing these issues with you.
MIKE OSSIPOFF a écrit :
Some time ago, two people on this list were advocating the use
of 1-person-1
are vanishingly unlikely in public
elections.
Mike Ossipoff
_
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc
a qualified tie defeat if it isn't in a cycle consisting only
of itself and some combination of kept defeats and qualified defeats.
Mike Ossipoff
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page
if they could justify 1p1v in terms
of a fundamental standard.
Their failure to do so, after all this time, is their way of telling
us that they can't justify 1p1v in terms of a fundamental standard,
and that 1p1v apparently has no justification.
Mike Ossipoff
that mathematics can provide new scope for new methods
, thereby finding better ones, whether immediately proposable or not.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page
rank at least
as many candidates as they'd vote for in Approval).
I'm not qualified to discuss how the new CS method should be done,
because I haven't studied linear algebra. But of course I suggest that
the way of doing it be chosen so as to achieve the best properties.
Mike Ossipoff
to decide whom they'll run.
Anyway, obviously plain 1-balloting Approval is what one would replace
Plurality with in the general election in those partisan elections
that don't have a runoff.
More after New Year's Day.
Mike Ossipoff
all you want! It's always useful
for people outside the U.S. to express their opinion of the tragedy/disaster
that's now happening to the U.S.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN 8 limited-time offer: Join now and get 3 months FREE*.
http
to the statements that he keeps
making, just so that it won't seem to anyone that he has unanswerable
arguments.
Mike Ossipoff
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 3 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmailxAPID=42PS
Forrest--
You wrote:
Don might be happy to be expelled; then he can claim that his barbs
were
so sharp that the EM list members couldn't cope with them, so they
banned
him. It might give the EM list a reputation for closed mindedness.
Even undeserved reputations can be bad PR.
I reply:
. But those are just the kind of CWs that IRVists don't
want to win! Is IRV biting its own master? Worse for popular CWs,
while helping less popular CWs? By IRVists' own standards, Runoff is doing
better by CWs than IRV is.
Mike Ossipoff
Markus Schulze
Don said:
Greetings list members,
Mikeo wrote:
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Best Method In Use
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 06:15:45 +
I only know of 3 single-winner methods that are used in public
political elections, and all 3 are used
unable to stop.
Anyway, just the regular habit of posting about other list members
instead of the list's charter topic should be enough to say that
Craig's Don's postings don't belong on EM. Or, if you think that
such postings do belong on EM, then why?
Mike Ossipoff
Don said:
Greetings list members,
Mike Ossipoff wrote:
In my most recent message, the following passage was accidentally
left in after it had been discovered to be incorrect:
(In ordinary Approval, the fact that the Dems are more numerous than
the Nader people means that the Dem candidates
I can about CS.
It's all hypothetical now, anyway, since CS is too complicated and
unconventional in its definition, and probably too unconventional in
its behavior, to be proposable till the public take more interest
in single-winner reform, after Approval, CR, etc., has been adopted.
Mike
and
international elections.
Though your question was about official governance elections, let
me just add that Approval is also used by mathematical and
engineering professional societies with combined membership in excess
of 600,000.
Mike Ossipoff
and other CR versions are the best public
proposal.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe
for comparing the merits of various distance measures.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For more information about this list (subscribe
?
Or what about Hamming distance for that purpose (As I said, I
don't know what Hamming distance is)?
Mike Ossipoff
Here's the crucial idea that allows us to avoid the survey: a voter's
position in issue space is reflected in the voter's choice of approved
candidates.
The fewer disagreements two
something that IRV doesn't do.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc
votes among fewer pairs because of the
number that he likes, Approval is about 3 times fairer than Plurality.
Mike Ossipoff
It's been argued that 0,1,2 or 0,.5,1 is simpler than -1,0,1 because
they don't have a negative number. But -1,0,1 is simpler because it
only has integers, and, aside from
, or approximate date of that EM discussion?
They were quite some time ago, more than a few months. Of course if
I knew even roughly how long ago, I'd have found them for myself by now.
Of course I tried the search feature but it didn't find them.
Mike Ossipoff
-criterion won't be accepted on EM as a fundamental
standard, and therefore needs justification in terms of something
more fundamental than itself.
Mike Ossipoff
_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http
want to use unequal voting power to justify
1p1v, you need to do a lot more than you've done so far.
So what is 1p1v--criterion, fundamental standard, or derived standard.
And if it isn't a fundamental standard, then how would you justify
it in terms of a standard that you call fundamental?
Mike
for justification of it as a criterion.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc
Steph--
You wrote:
Statement of Criterion
If an Ideal Democratic Winner (IDW) exists, and if a two-third majority
prefers the IDW to another candidate, then the other candidate should
not win if that majority votes sincerely and no other voter falsifies
any preferences.
I reply:
wv passes
preferred to Jones in terms of voted preferences.
What do you mean by 1-person-1-vote?
Mike Ossipoff
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For more information
to get their way. Continued tomorrow.
Mike Ossipoff
I choose the second one,
and this follows from my reasons for favouring majority rule in the
first place. But if I had no reasons, I might pick something different.
Of what relevance is a non-majority of people who don't even bother to
vote?
I
by a majority as described in the definitions of the
defensive strategy criteria.
And even if you speak of a majority of those registered, or of the
population, using that definition in the defensive strategy criteria,
wv still passes and margins still fails.
Mike Ossipoff
about 3 times worse than Approval does.
And if that isn't what you mean by 1-person-1-vote, then exactly what
do you mean by 1-person-1-vote?
Mike Ossipoff
Steph.
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8
you post your definitions of your criteria, you can
compare them with other criteria, if you want to, by just stating
the criteria and asking which sounds more important, and why.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail
election
as Approval might do, if people's estimates were off in the 1st election.
Said in that way, the advantage of Condorcet over Approval doesn't
sound so great. All the more reason to propose Approval, -1,0,1, or
other CR versions instead, due to their greater simplicity and
proposableness.
Mike
with IRV Plurality) that have
situations where the only Nash equilibria are ones in which some voters
use defensive order-reversal.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page
can have some degree of success.
Mike Ossipoff
_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ
a CW who is preferred to
candidate y by a majority who vote sincerely. Re-read SFC GSFC.
Those criteria, though they don't mention truncation, tell what i
claim for wv when no one order-reverses.
mike ossipoff
_
MSN 8 with e-mail
on that.
So let us check another subject:
relative margins (rm) vs winning-votes (wv)
MIKE OSSIPOFF a écrit :
A margins advocate could say that he doesn't consider the majority
defensive strategy criteria important, but they measure for the
standards of majority rule and getting rid of the lesser
. There are infinitely many ways to count
ranked ballots. That makes it difficult or impossible to get one of
the few good ones adopted. That's one reason to propse Approval or
-1,0,1 instead of a rank method.
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
An advantage of Approval over CR is that Approval doesn't require a
ballot
When i replied to this message as individual e-mail, i forgot to
send a copy to myself, and so i'm writing a new reply here, which
might be briefer than the original:
Alex--
you wrote:
MIKE OSSIPOFF said:
But someone wrote to me suggesting a method that has both of those
advantages: Yes
is violated if we elect someone who has an
unnulified MPP against him/her.
A voter votes defensive strategy if s/he votes in a way intended to
protect the win of a CW, or to prevent a violation of majority preference.
[end of definition]
Mike Ossipoff
his/her favorite over everyone else.
And where the offensive strategy definition says ...intended to
take victory from a CW..., it should add there ...in a Condorcet
Criterion method.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Add photos to your e-mail
California, and in California.
Obviously, for the reasons that you gave above,
and also because other considerations are of more concern to voters,
Consistency failure isn't such a strong bad-mark against a method.
Mike Ossipoff
with the definitions.
Mike Ossipoff
_
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http
enacted method.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see
.
Unlike Approval, Instant Runoff is a completely new voting system,
with an expensive new balloting system.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Broadband? Dial-up? Get reliable MSN Internet Access.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans
_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see
the winner from B to
C, their last choice.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
For more information about this list (subscribe
, won't be a problem.
I believe that all the Condorcet versions mentioned above comply
with Pareto, but I don't have a demonstration of that.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now!
http
, each voter may
mark as many candidates as s/he wishes. The candidate with the most
marks wins.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans
for the standard of getting rid of
the lesser-of-2-evils problem. They also measure for the closely
related, and popular, standard of majority rule.
The discussion of sincere Nash equilibria on EM also relates to
defensive strategy need.
Mike Ossipoff
The same
goes for the details of PR
lots of indifference about the
CW, then truncation can steal the election from him. SFC GSFC
tell conditions in which that needn't happen, though they don't
specifically mention truncation.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Chat with friends online
, and because I haven't
tried it yet.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http
around. You can
kiss the margins methods goodbye as a proposal for public elections.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
For more
. Or choosing Condorcet(margins) over Condorcet(wv)
Mike Ossipoff
Part 3 later.
_
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe
, and to
the margins Condorcet versions.
The use of a pairwise-count methods gains compliance with Condorcet's
Criterion, but, as the example shows, Condorcet's Criterion isn't
worth a lot by itself.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Join the worlds largest e
is a notorious strategic mess, with all the strategy problems
described by advocates of other voting systems.
I'm sending this partial reply now, and will immediately begin
a reply to the rest of the message.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Join
for their attempted
offensive order-reversal.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc
defined that
term here. With those methods, there are situations in which the
only equilibria are ones in which defensive order-reversal is used.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
create that strategic need to anything like the degree that
single-winner STV does. With single-winner STV you'll often need to
bury your favorite to protect your compromise. Approval, by the way,
will never give anyone incentive to do that.
Mike Ossipoff
Steph--
You wrote:
To Mike Ossipoff...
I find some of your criterias partially subjective.
Please let me explain.
If a voter decides to truncate its preferences,
he changes some of his pairwise opinions from
AB to A?B (meaning he does not care anymore).
It seems to me reasonable
. But whether or not your voted preferences are counted
reliably depends on whether or not we're regrettably conducting the
election with IRV.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
for whom the merit differences within the sets
are insignificant compared to the merit difference between the sets.
But I'd be ashamed if I'd started a discussion of IRV strategy, so
I hope no one but Don or Craig will reply to this message.
I'd probably not vote at all in an IRV election.
Mike
, may not hurt your favorite, but
it might not hurt your last choice either, or help your 2nd choice.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
For more information about this list
voting system among EM members,
and that some Condorcet versions are popular here.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
For more information
.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
winnable they are. Take the square roots
of those numbers to get the Pi. Pfi is i's Pi divided by the sum
of the Pi of the other candidates other than X Y.
This way of estimating Weber's Pij is probably more reliable than
estimating the Wi and using Tideman's estimating method.
Mike Ossipoff
, the win probabilities
that Weber-Tideman uses.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc
,
or better than average, if it's zero-info.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http
be done.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http
aren't vanishingly unlikely in committees, they're still significantly
less likely than 2-way ties.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
For more information about
. People who
listen and take the necessary time will understand that Condorcet(wv)
is the rank-count that they want. But will enough people make that
effort?
Mike Ossipoff
_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http
winner, and the genuine winner.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ
, and
in any particular placed where a public proposal is going to be made.
Mike Ossipoff
_
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
For more information about
with
information about its problems. It won in SF only because no one
was sharing information about it there.
So IRV should be easy to defeat, and, instead of getting into the
debate of one rank-count vs another, Approval is the proposal that
should be offered as a replacement for IRV.
Mike Ossipoff
Richard:
I'd said:
What I'm saying is that Weber and delta-p could both use the assumption
that all ties are 2-way, or they could take into account n-member
ties near-ties.
You replied:
If you take those effects into account for both methods, or ignore those
effects for both methods, then
You wrote:
In the pij equation, Wik represents the probability that i will
defeat k strictly on votes (i.e, they will not tie), compared to
Bik which includes the possibility that i beats k in a tiebreaker.
Wik is used here since the definition of pij as I understand it
only includes two-way
of voting that maximizes that sum.
[end of definition]
That's what I mean by Weber's method. Of course it has a very
simple implementation when the many-voter simplifying assumptions are
permissible.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Chat
1 - 100 of 831 matches
Mail list logo
