Dodgson came up with Asset Voting, and I'm sure that is what Lomax was referring to, but Asset Voting is not the method commonly called Dodgson's Method, hence the confusion.
> > 2010/4/21 Andrew Myers > > > On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: > > > > However, I strongly urge people who attempt to analyze the situation > > and to propose reforms to: > > > > 1. Keep it simple. An extraordinarily powerful system for fully > > proportional representation consisting of a seemingly-simple > tweak on > > Single Transferable Vote was proposed in 1883 or so by Charles > > Dodgson (Lewis Carroll). If a simple system that is > **obviously** far > > more democratic doesn't attract notice for more than a hundred > years,> what chance does something more complicated and dodgier (i.e., > > involving lots of unknowns) have? > > > > > > This description is misleading. It omits that there are no > known good > > algorithms for implementing this method: the computational > complexity of > > Dodgson's voting method is prohibitive. In fact, it was not > even known until > > a few years ago, when the problem was shown to be complete for > parallel> access to an NP oracle (class Theta_2^p). > > > > http://www.springerlink.com/content/wg040716q8261222/ > > > > This result means it is extremely far from being usable in > practice. Unless > > P=NP, there are no polynomial-time algorithms for deciding > elections with > > Dodgson's method. > > > > -- Andrew > > > > Huh? Dodgson's method is asset voting. If I'm not mistaken, he > did not put > any time limit on the convention - vote holders could refuse to > delegatetheir votes. Other Asset systems mandate vote transfers > under certain > circumstances (elimination-style, to prevent games of chicken of "you > endorse me", "no, you endorse me"). However, in either case, > it's still a > decidable process. > > If you want tweaks to Asset to promote dialog: you can mandate > some form of > accessibility to communication, either vertically (between a > voter/proxy and > their proxy/metaproxy) and/or horizontally (between the voters/direct > subproxies for a given proxy). I think that vertical > accessibility to > communication should be mandatory, and all vertical > communication should be > accessible (though perhaps anonymized) horizontally. This would > mean that > every level could function as a deliberative body. > > Jameson Quinn > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > electorama.com/attachments/20100421/31bcc585/attachment.html> > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Election-Methods mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods- > electorama.com > > End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 70, Issue 44 > ************************************************ >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
