At 06:59 PM 12/30/2008, Terry Bouricius wrote:
I take offense at Abd repeatedly suggesting I am a liar or am engaging in
deception. We have a legitimate difference of opinion about the
appropriate use of the term "majority" and interpretation of RRONR.
I have generally been very reluctant to us
At 12:46 PM 12/30/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:48 AM 12/28/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
That makes the entire cycle, including polls and feedback, into one
election system. Method is too narrow, because the system isn'
At 12:55 PM 12/30/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
However, consider this: the Plurality voting system (FPTP)
encourages compromise already. There would have been more sincere
first preference votes. My guess, though, is that the use of, say,
Bucklin, would have
Just for clarity, can we agree that
">In Bucklin, after the first round, there is no majority."
is a non-sequitor? There aren't "rounds" in Bucklin. All counts for all
(#voters ranking alternative x >= rank n" are known simultaneously.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.
At 08:56 AM 12/30/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I would say that the problem is not just that culture expects
alienation, but that a full on "everybody discusses with everybody
else" scales very poorly (worst case quadratic) so that the common
opinion never converges, or converges very s
At 09:28 AM 12/30/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
The great majority of Condorcet methods use the Condorcet matrix to
determine the outcome. I say great majority because non-summable
Condorcet methods exist. Anyhow, the use of a matrix may seem
complex, but I think that to sum Bucklin votes
I take offense at Abd repeatedly suggesting I am a liar or am engaging in
deception. We have a legitimate difference of opinion about the
appropriate use of the term "majority" and interpretation of RRONR.
At the outset, we might all agree that no system can really assure a
_true_ "majority win
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:36 AM 12/28/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:45 AM
> The UK is also parliamentary, so I suppose there would be few places
> where you could actually have a runoff.
Given that all members of the UK Parliament
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:48 AM 12/28/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The error was in imagining that a single ballot could accomplish what
takes two or more ballots. Even two ballots is a compromise, though,
under the right conditions -- better primary m
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:03 AM 12/28/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Say that Approval distorts towards Plurality. What does Condorcet
distort towards -- Borda? "Let's bury the suckers"? If people are
strategic and do a lot of such distortion, wouldn't a runoff between
Condorcet (
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 04:44 AM 12/28/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
[it was written:] I am satisfied that there are perfectly adequate
"vote once"
systems available for all public elections, both single-office
elections and assembly elections.
If the
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: "I agree with your first point [that extending the rights of
humans to non-human entities is a flawed concept], but the
precedent seems to go all the way back to 1886."
Precedent has a place in our lives but it ought not, and need not, be
12 matches
Mail list logo
