Re: [EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

Markus Schulze wrote: The aim of proportional representation is to minimize the number of wasted votes. However, proportionality is not the only criterion for a good multi- winner method. I prefer PR-STV to PR-PL because STV makes it possible for independent candidates to get elected. I consider

[EM] 12/23/02 - Show Us The Ballots Mikeo!!

12/23/02 - Comments on Mikeo's list of Best Methods: 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

Re: [EM] 12/23/02 - Show Us The Ballots Mikeo!!

Mike wrote and Donald responded: Mikeo: One advantage that Runoff has over IRV is that, with Runoff, at least a CW can't lose if s/he comes in 1st or 2nd in the 1st balloting, whereas in IRV a CW can lose even if s/he's the favorite of by far the most people. The scenario in which that happens

Re: [EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

Markus, very good points. You've convinced me that party list in any form has significant weaknesses. What do you think of my last comment, about the advantages of PAV over STV? I'd say the main advantages are twofold: - voting in PAV is unquestionably easier than STV. For this reason, one

RE: [EM] 12/23/02 - Show Us The Ballots Mikeo!!

Hey Donald, you wrote this... -- Mikeo: One advantage that Runoff has over IRV is that, with Runoff, at least a CW can't lose if s/he comes in 1st or 2nd in the 1st balloting, whereas in IRV a CW can lose even if s/he's the favorite of by far the most people. The scenario in which

RE: [EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

Donald wrote: District STV has this added problem because there is no linkage between the party proportionality in the district and the party proportionality in the entire jurisdiction. This is only a problem if you think it's a problem. In practice most electors readily accept a trade-off

RE: [EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

Adam wrote Markus, very good points. You've convinced me that party list in any form has significant weaknesses. Amen to that! What do you think of my last comment, about the advantages of PAV over STV? I searched the archive but could not find an explanation of PAV. I found lots of

Re: [EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

Dear Adam, in my opinion, the used STV method should be able to interpret X-vote ballots appropriately. But it should not require X-vote ballots. The problem with approval voting is that voters who don't have enough information will approve either all potential winners or no potential winner so

Re: Show us the ballots, mikeo

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 in

[EM] Depolarizing the debates - SPPA

Adam-- I am pleased EM list discussions moved toward multiple-winners election, some of the last mails were of a very low level my 3 years old daughter cannot match... I have tried to invent a system that would permit voters to build the list using results from their ballots. It is explained at: