On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Blake Cretney wrote:
Well, I can't tell anymore whether we disagree or not. Here's my point.
If some people are able to get more influence by a greater
understanding of the method, or better guesses about how other's are
voting, I say that is a bad thing, although to
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Blake Cretney wrote:
Joe Weinstein wrote:
As a citizen and voter, I don't want the election method to give
gratuitous incentive to CAMPAIGN strategies which aim to confuse and
entrap voters, e.g. thru introduction of incontestable fallacious poll
data or
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Forest Simmons wrote:
My thinking about Nurmi and Bartholdi's measure of manipulability is
similar to Mike's.
Consider the example of Perverse Random Ballot: the winner is the
candidate at the bottom of the list on a randomly chosen ballot.
The optimum strategy is
As a citizen and voter, I don't want the election method to give gratuitous
incentive to CAMPAIGN strategies which aim to confuse and entrap voters,
e.g. thru introduction of incontestable fallacious poll data or of extra
clones (pro or maybe con a given position).
But I do have a VOTING
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Markus Schulze wrote:
Dear Forest,
in so far as IRV meets majority for solid coalitions and independence
from clones, IRV can hardly be called erratic compared to primary
with runoff.
Markus Schulze
I suppose there are as many meanings of erratic as there are of
Dear Mike,
you wrote (2 Feb 2002):
Markus wrote (2 Feb 2002):
Due to Nurmi and Bartholdi, the more information you need
about the opinions of the voters resp. the more accurate this
information must be to be able to calculate a strategy, the less
vulnerable to strategies the used
Markus, we went over this a long time ago on this list.
Markus wrote:
Due to Nurmi and Bartholdi, the more information you need about the
opinions of the voters resp. the more accurate this information must
be to be able to calculate a strategy, the less vulnerable to strategies
the used
