MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Blake said:
Some countries use plurality with successive elimination for things like
leadership conventions. I think Americans use it for speaker of the
house. Since the strategy is very similar, I think that awareness of
strategy in one would be good evidence of
Blake said:
Some countries use plurality with successive elimination for things like
leadership conventions. I think Americans use it for speaker of the
house. Since the strategy is very similar, I think that awareness of
strategy in one would be good evidence of awareness of strategy in the
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Blake said:
I wonder if anyone can find a newspaper or magazine article or editorial
that hints at some awareness of strategy in IRV. I doubt it, although
I've been wrong before.
I reply:
Since neither you nor I reside in Australia, that's a
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Bart Ingles wrote:
I had the chance to speak to an Australian visitor at a recent local
Libertarian convention. Her stated reason for liking IRV was that she
was able to rank a sure-to-lose fringe candidate above her favorite, in
order to keep the favorite from taking
Forest Simmons wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Bart Ingles wrote:
I had the chance to speak to an Australian visitor at a recent local
Libertarian convention. Her stated reason for liking IRV was that she
was able to rank a sure-to-lose fringe candidate above her favorite, in
order to
Blake said:
I wonder if anyone can find a newspaper or magazine article or editorial
that hints at some awareness of strategy in IRV. I doubt it, although
I've been wrong before.
I reply:
Since neither you nor I reside in Australia, that's a pointless thing
for us to speculate about. All 3
Dear Mike,
you wrote (10 Feb 2002):
By the way, I didn't say that I despise the journal authors on
voting systems. They live in a world of their own, seemingly quite
out of touch with the concerns and interest of voters. Why despise
them for that? That's purely their business.
You also
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I reply:
Well, I've said that one thing that I don't like about IRV is that
its mathematical strategy is exceptionally difficult, requiring
estimate of many probabilities. Difficulty doesn't mean that people
won't try to guess, of course. Insincere voting is
Blake Cretney wrote:
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I reply:
Well, I've said that one thing that I don't like about IRV is that
its mathematical strategy is exceptionally difficult, requiring
estimate of many probabilities. Difficulty doesn't mean that people
won't try to guess,
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Blake Cretney wrote:
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Well, I've said that one thing that I don't like about IRV is that
its mathematical strategy is exceptionally difficult, requiring
estimate of many probabilities. Difficulty doesn't mean that people
won't try to guess,
I sent this message to EM yesterday, but it couldn't be delivered,
and so I'm resending it now:
Blake said:
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 some
11 matches
Mail list logo
