election-methods  

Messages by Thread

• • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Jan Kok
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Jan Kok
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Mae West was interested in voting methods? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
• [EM] PG-MPO Forest W Simmons
  • Re: [EM] PG-MPO Jobst Heitzig
• Re: [EM] EQTOP-MPO MAMPO example Forest W Simmons
  • Re: [EM] EQTOP-MPO MAMPO example Paul Kislanko
  • [EM] RE : Re: EQTOP-MPO MAMPO example Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Quebec election - references... Elisabeth Varin
  • Re: [EM] Quebec election - references... Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] Quebec election - references... Elisabeth Varin
  • Re: [EM] Quebec election - references... Howard Swerdfeger
• [EM] Forest--EQTOP-MPO MAMPO example Michael Ossipoff
  • [EM] For some action, follow Quebec election tonight Elisabeth Varin
• [EM] An objection that I hadn't spelled-out before Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] Venzke system for applying criteria, "FARCS" Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] Venzke system for applying criteria, "FARCS" Michael Ossipoff
  • [EM] One example of a wording problem Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] One example of a wording problem Chris Benham
• [EM] MAMPO variations Forest W Simmons
• [EM] Brief final comments on FARCS Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] FARCS: Be careful how you use it Michael Ossipoff
• Re: [EM] Greatest Majority Consent Forest W Simmons
  • [EM] RE : Re: Greatest Majority Consent Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Greatest Majority Consent (GMC) Forest W Simmons
  • [EM] RE : Greatest Majority Consent (GMC) Kevin Venzke
  • Re: [EM] Greatest Majority Consent (GMC) Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Directional Resistance Forest W Simmons
  • Re: [EM] Directional Resistance Michael Poole
  • Re: [EM] Directional Resistance Michael Poole
  • Re: [EM] Directional Resistance Jobst Heitzig
  • Re: [EM] Directional Resistance Forest W Simmons
• [EM] Borrow sincere voting definition for FARC Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] More FARCS problems Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] More FARCS problems Chris Benham
  • [EM] RE : More FARCS problems Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Criteria Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Reply to Kevin's 21 February posing Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] Problems of FARCS Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] A definition for your criteria system Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] A definition for your criteria system Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] A definition for your criteria system Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] Announcing OpenSTV 1.1 Jeffrey O'Neill
  • Re: [EM] Announcing OpenSTV 1.1 Brian Olson
• [EM] another example of using virtual candidates Forest W Simmons
• [EM] A natural variation on DMC Forest W Simmons
• [EM] Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • [EM] RE : Chris: Approval Kevin Venzke
  • Re: [EM] RE : Chris: Approval Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] RE : Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • [EM] RE : Chris: Approval Kevin Venzke
  • Re: [EM] RE : Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] RE : Chris: Approval Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] RE : Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • [EM] 22 March, 1435 GMT, Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • [EM] RE : 22 March, 1435 GMT, Chris: Approval Kevin Venzke
  • Re: [EM] RE : 22 March, 1435 GMT, Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] 22 March, 1435 GMT, Chris: Approval Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] 22 March, 1435 GMT, Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] 22 March, 1435 GMT, Chris: Approval Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] 22 March, 1435 GMT, Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Utility, its math'l foundations & history Warren Smith
• [EM] Two anagrams of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] Two anagrams of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" David Cary
  • Re: [EM] Two anagrams of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] Replies in advance Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] Chris, majority-rule, etc. Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] Chris, majority-rule, etc. Chris Benham
  • [EM] Chris: Approval Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] Chris: Approval Chris Benham
• [EM] uses of truncation Forest W Simmons
  • Re: [EM] uses of truncation Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] uses of truncation Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] uses of truncation Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] uses of truncation Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] uses of truncation Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] uses of truncation Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] uses of truncation Forest W Simmons
• [EM] Tree based Condorcet strategies Juho
• [EM] More re: FBCs Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] FBCs Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) raphfrk
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Juho
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Juho
• [EM] DAMC meets reasonable FBC Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] DAMC meets reasonable FBC Jobst Heitzig
• Re: [EM] Are proposed methods asymptotically aproaching some limit of utility? Kevin Venzke
  • Re: [EM] Are proposed methods asymptotically aproaching some limit of utility? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
• [EM] The history of utility theory, ideas, and flames Warren Smith
• [EM] response to David Cary re Bayesian Regret Warren Smith
• [EM] Beatpath(Unc, wv), a version of Beatpath that always picks from the Uncovered set Forest W Simmons
  • Re: [EM] Beatpath(Unc, wv), a version of Beatpath that always picks from the Uncovered set Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] A way that DAMC might fail FBC (I'm not sure that it does) Michael Ossipoff
• [EM] What is FBC/SF Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] What is FBC/SF Chris Benham
• [EM] Chris reply Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] Chris reply Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] Chris reply Chris Benham
• [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Michael Poole
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Juho
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Howard Swerdfeger
  • Re: [EM] divided house problem of close vote (50%+1) Juho
• [EM] RE : Re: Are proposed methods asymptotically aproaching some limit of utility? Kevin Venzke
  • Re: [EM] RE : Re: Are proposed methods asymptotically aproaching some limit of utility? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] RE : Re: Are proposed methods asymptotically aproaching some limit of utility? Michael Poole
  • Re: [EM] RE : Re: Are proposed methods asymptotically aproaching some limit of utility? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
• [EM] Why is Bayesian Regret the "Gold Standard" David Cary
• [EM] reply to venzke - range "random skewing" effect is not a problem Warren Smith
  • [EM] RE : reply to venzke - range "random skewing" effect is not a problem Kevin Venzke
  • Re: [EM] reply to venzke - range "random skewing" effect is not a problem Juho
  • Re: [EM] reply to venzke - range "random skewing" effect is not a problem Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] reply to venzke - range "random skewing" effect is not a problem Juho
  • Re: [EM] reply to venzke - range "random skewing" effect is not a problem Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
• [EM] Improved versions of those 3 examples Michael Ossipoff
  • Re: [EM] Improved versions of those 3 examples Chris Benham
• [EM] reply to venzke Warren Smith
  • Re: [EM] reply to venzke Scott Ritchie
  • [EM] RE : reply to venzke Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Chris Benham
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Juho
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Juho
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Juho
  • [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • [EM] Path to a Proxy Legislature Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Path to a Proxy Legislature Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Juho
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees by Proxy Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Juho
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Dave Ketchum
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Juho
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Juho
  • Re: [EM] Free Associations (was: Trees and single-winner methods) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
  • Re: [EM] Trees and single-winner methods Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

• Earlier messages
• Later messages