election-methods-list  

Messages by Thread

• • RE: Maltese Election Data & Analysis DEMOREP1
  • Re: Maltese Election Data & Analysis Norman Petry
  • Re: Maltese Election Data & Analysis DEMOREP1
• Schulze Method - Simpler Definition Norman Petry
  • Re: Schulze Method - Simpler Definition Norman Petry
  • Re: Schulze Method - Simpler Definition David Marsay
  • Re: Schulze Method - Simpler Definition Norman Petry
  • Re: Schulze Method - Simpler Definition Norman Petry
  • Re: Schulze Method - Simpler Definition Norman Petry
• Ooops! Re: STV without Elimination (fwd) David Catchpole
• STV without Elimination Norman Petry
  • Re: STV without Elimination David Catchpole
  • Re: STV without Elimination David Catchpole
  • RE: STV without Elimination DEMOREP1
• Explaining Schulze Blake Cretney
  • RE: Explaining Schulze DEMOREP1
  • RE: Explaining Schulze Blake Cretney
  • RE: Explaining Schulze DEMOREP1
• Re: Maybe Schulze is decisive. Norman Petry
  • Re: Maybe Schulze is decisive. Markus Schulze
• Goldfish, a remarkable advance Mike Ositoff
• Beat-Path GMC is better of course Mike Ositoff
• D'Hondt Formula Mardi Seng
• Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives Norman Petry
  • Re: Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives David Catchpole
  • Re: Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives Blake Cretney
• Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet, etc. DEMOREP1
• Patching Up Condorcet In Multi-Winner Elections (Oops!) David Catchpole
• Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives (plus a brief hello and an STV clarification) In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> David Catchpole
• Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives (plus a brief hello and an STV clarification) X-Sender-Ip: 199.175.107.34 Blake Cretney
• RE: [email protected] DEMOREP1
• RE: Condorcet and multi-winner elections DEMOREP1
• Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet etc. DEMOREP1
• Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives (plus a brief hello and an STV clarification) In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9808261222.A17238-0100000@netcom14> David Catchpole
  • Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives (plus a brief hello and an STV clarification) To: [email protected] Mike Ositoff
• Tideman bad-example Mike Ositoff
• Consistency Consequences Mike Ositoff
• Tiebreaker Need Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Tiebreaker Need Blake Cretney
  • Re: Tiebreaker Need David Marsay
• That's Probably SC Mike Ositoff
• Clone Independence Criteria Norman Petry
  • Re: Clone Independence Criteria Markus Schulze
• The Canadian Plan New Democracy
• Re: Proposed SD Algorithm Defective Norman Petry
  • Re: Proposed SD Algorithm Defective David Catchpole
  • Re: Proposed SD Algorithm Defective Blake Cretney
  • Re: Proposed SD Algorithm Defective Blake Cretney
• Random Ballot Tiebreaker Norman Petry
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Blake Cretney
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Norman Petry
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Markus Schulze
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Markus Schulze
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Blake Cretney
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Blake Cretney
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Markus Schulze
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Blake Cretney
  • Re: Random Ballot Tiebreaker Markus Schulze
• Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives (plus a brief hello and an STV clarification) In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> David Catchpole
  • Condorcet and multi-winner elections David Catchpole
  • Patching Up Condorcet In Multi-Winner Elections David Catchpole
  • Re: Normative principles of elections- Condorcet and Irrelevance of Alternatives (plus a brief hello and an STV clarification) To: David Catchpole <[email protected]> Mike Ositoff
• Goldfish (GMC) Blake Cretney
• Goldfish (single-winner method) Blake Cretney
  • Re: Goldfish (single-winner method) Blake Cretney
  • Re: Goldfish (single-winner method) Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Goldfish (single-winner method) Blake Cretney
  • Re: Goldfish (single-winner method) Blake Cretney
  • Re: Goldfish (single-winner method) Norman Petry
  • Re: Goldfish (single-winner method) Blake Cretney
  • Re: Goldfish (single-winner method) David Marsay
• Correction: PD (Pairwise Dropping) doesn't exist! Norman Petry
• Not As Bad As It Sounds! Mike Ositoff
• SD Smith Compliant Mike Ositoff
  • Re: SD Smith Compliant Norman Petry
• Blake C: Ranking Can Backfire Mike Ositoff
• Clone Compliance Mike Ositoff
• Schulze: D>E 9 Bingo. Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Schulze: D>E 9 Bingo. Norman Petry
• Maybe None Clone-Independent Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Maybe None Clone-Independent Norman Petry
• Criterion Clarification Blake Cretney
  • Re: Criterion Clarification Mike Ositoff
• Comparison of latest Condorcet Variants Norman Petry
  • Re: Comparison of latest Condorcet Variants Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Comparison of latest Condorcet Variants Norman Petry
  • Re: Comparison of latest Condorcet Variants Norman Petry
• Truncation with Condorcet Blake Cretney
  • Re: Truncation with Condorcet Mike Ositoff
  • RE: Truncation with Condorcet DEMOREP1
  • Re: Truncation with Condorcet Blake Cretney
  • Re: Truncation with Condorcet Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Truncation with Condorcet David Marsay
  • Re: Truncation with Condorcet DEMOREP1
  • Re: Truncation with Condorcet Blake Cretney
  • Re: Truncation with Condorcet David Marsay
• I vote for Condorcet's own proposal Mike Ositoff
• Oops, it isn't Condorcet(EM) Mike Ositoff
• 1st Order Precedence method Mike Ositoff
• Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Norman Petry
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Norman Petry
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Markus Schulze
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Markus Schulze
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Norman Petry
  • Re: Tiebreakers, Subcycle Rules Mike Ositoff
• Correct Wording Of My Proposal Mike Ositoff
• Good-Working Method Mike Ositoff
• Condocet Versions--some equivalent? Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Condocet Versions--some equivalent? Norman Petry
• RE: Lowest YES tiebreaker DEMOREP1
• Re: Party List P.S. Saari
  • Re: Party List P.S. Mike Ositoff
• Problems with Condorcet bartman
  • Re: Problems with Condorcet David Marsay
  • Re: Problems with Condorcet Bart Ingles
  • Re: Problems with Condorcet Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Problems with Condorcet Bart Ingles
  • Re: Problems with Condorcet Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Problems with Condorcet Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Condorcet Hell comment Bart Ingles
  • RE: Problems with Condorcet DEMOREP1
• "Reverse-Tideman" Idea Explained Norman Petry
  • Re: "Reverse-Tideman" Idea Explained Norman Petry
• Bottoms-Up and STPV Norman Petry
  • RE: Bottoms-Up and STPV DEMOREP1
• Tideman & GMC Mike Ositoff
• House-Monotonicity Problem in Ranked STV -- an Example Norman Petry
  • Re: House-Monotonicity Problem in Ranked STV -- an Example Mike Ositoff
• California IRO proposal? :-| Mike Ositoff
  • Re: California IRO proposal? :-| New Democracy
• 1992, not 1922 Mike Ositoff
• Tideman Definition Different? Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Tideman Definition Different? David Marsay
• Lowest YES tiebreakers DEMOREP1
• Majority/Quota Combinations DEMOREP1
• U.S. Election Data, 1920-1996 DEMOREP1
• Majority Beatpaths DEMOREP1
• Tideman Problem Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Tideman Problem Norman Petry
• And all this leads too . . .? Curtiss Brown
  • RE: And all this leads too . . .? DEMOREP1
  • Re: And all this leads too . . .? Norman Petry
  • Re: And all this leads too . . .? Rob Lanphier
• Re: Vacancy Rule - STV cycles rule Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Vacancy Rule - STV cycles rule Norman Petry
• Re: Tideman vs. Schulze Norman Petry
  • Re: Tideman vs. Schulze Mike Ositoff
  • RE: Tideman vs. Schulze DEMOREP1
  • Re: Tideman vs. Schulze David Marsay
  • Re: Tideman vs. Schulze Markus Schulze
  • Re: Tideman vs. Schulze Norman Petry
  • Re: Tideman vs. Schulze DEMOREP1
• possible misunderstanding Mike Ositoff
• Direct Democracy DEMOREP1
• Bottoms Up for Herman Beun New Democracy
  • Re: Bottoms Up for Herman Beun Herman Beun
• Refinement to Proposal Mike Ositoff
• STV is not house-monotonous! Markus Schulze
  • RE: STV is not house-monotonous! DEMOREP1
• N minus 1 or Reverse Plurality DEMOREP1
• STV for party lists Mike Ositoff
• Re: STV for party candidate lists? Herman Beun
  • Re: STV for party candidate lists? Herman Beun
  • RE: STV for party candidate lists? DEMOREP1
  • RE: STV for party candidate lists? DEMOREP1
  • Re: STV for party candidate lists? Herman Beun
  • Re: STV for party candidate lists? Markus Schulze
  • Re: STV for party candidate lists? Markus Schulze
  • RE: STV for party candidate lists? DEMOREP1
  • RE: STV for party candidate lists? Markus Schulze
  • RE: STV for party candidate lists? DEMOREP1
  • Re: STV for party candidate lists? DEMOREP1
  • Re: STV for party candidate lists? DEMOREP1
• Only About U.S. Greens Mike Ositoff
• Re: nonmajoritarian disadvantages DEMOREP1
• Publicizing reform methods DEMOREP1
• Truncated Votes clue DEMOREP1
• Reversed Rankings DEMOREP1
  • reversed rankings Mike Ositoff
  • Re: reversed rankings Blake Cretney
  • Re: reversed rankings Mike Ositoff
• 1 to N and N/2 DEMOREP1
  • Re: 1 to N and N/2 DEMOREP1
• $0,$1,$10,$100 Mike Ositoff
• CVD Newsgroup? Mike Ositoff
• Measuring Preference Intensity Mike Ositoff
• Re: Always impossible! - not DEMOREP1
  • Re: Always impossible! - not Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Always impossible! - not Saari
  • Re: Always impossible! - not DEMOREP1
  • Re: Always impossible! - not DEMOREP1
  • Re: Always impossible! - not Mike Ositoff
  • Re: Always impossible! - not Saari
• Optimal? not Saari
  • RE: Optimal? not DEMOREP1
  • Re: Optimal? not Saari
  • Re: Optimal? not Saari

[Earlier messages] [Later messages]