It seems to me that a common sense solution would be to base which gets
used on the propensity for voters to be informed about the elections.
Also, the two types seem to be bundled with different types of quotas. STV
gets marketed with the droop quota here in the US. I'm not complaining
because
For those who feel that Bayesian Regret is the be-all-and-end-all measure
of voting system quality, that SODA's BR for 100% strategic voters will
beat all other systems, including Range/Approval.
For those who feel that Condorcet compliance is the be-all-and-end-all, a
majority Condorcet winner, o
>
>
> It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked choices
> or party-list PR.
>
I don't. I think that party-list removes voter freedom, and ranked choices
is too much of a burden on the voter. While either would be better than
what we have, I prefer to use delegation a la SOD
But why would you want all these differences and complications?
If you are going to use STV-PR for some of these elections, why not use STV-PR
for all of these elections to the various
"representative assemblies" (councils, state legislatures, US House of
Representatives, US Senate). STV-PR wor
Hallo,
it can happen that the weakest link in the strongest path
from candidate A to candidate B and the weakest link in the
strongest path from candidate B to candidate A is the same link,
say CD.
I recommend that, in this case, the link CD should be declared
"forbidden" and the strongest path f
>
>
> For those who feel that strategic resistance is the most important, SODA
> is unmatched. It ... has no burial incentive (ie, meets later-no-help),
>
Oops. I got carried away. "No burial incentive" is arguably true, but it
doesn't universally meet later-no-help, only up to 4 candidates.
Jame
On 2/17/12 1:27 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
it can happen that the weakest link in the strongest path
from candidate A to candidate B and the weakest link in the
strongest path from candidate B to candidate A is the same link,
say CD.
how can that be? since a path is a *defeat* path. you only t
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked choices
>> or party-list PR.
>>
>
> I don't. I think that party-list removes voter freedom, and ranked choices
> is too much of a burden on the voter. While either would be
IRV's got a first mover advantage over SODA and to catch up you need to
convince someone like Soros to help you market it. It wouldn't matter if
you got the whole EM list to agree with you that it was hunky-dory.
But in the context of a 2-party dominated system, there aren't as many
serious candi
On 2/17/2012 6:49 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
...
It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked
choices or party-list PR. ...
So what do you think?
I don't see this as an either/or choice, nor do I see a viable "both"
option being suggested.
So I'll again suggest VoteFai
If first-mover is all that counts, then I'm afraid we're stuck with
plurality. Obviously, I hope and believe that's not true.
Jameson
2012/2/17 David L Wetzell
> IRV's got a first mover advantage over SODA and to catch up you need to
> convince someone like Soros to help you market it. It woul
It is because first-mover counts a lot that we've been stuck with FPTP in
the US for such a long time in contrast with countries with younger
democracies...
I never said it was all that counts, but it counts a good deal, as I
metaphorically allude to by emphing the diffs in Ps over the diffs in Xs
From: Richard Fobes
> To: election-meth...@electorama.com
> Cc:
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:01:16 -0800
> Subject: Re: [EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?
> On 2/17/2012 6:49 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>> ...
>> It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked
>> ch
I give a rebuttal to the Electoral Reform Society's assessment of
party-list PR for the case of 3-seat LR Hare.
http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/05/electoral-reform-society-united-kingdom.html
dlw
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>
> From: Richard Fobes
>> To:
Hi Robert,
Suppose there are four candidates ABCD. B beats A with strength of 10. C beats
D with strength
of 20. With strength of 30, A beats C, B beats C, D beats A, and D beats B.
Then every candidate
has a path to every other candidate, and the best path from A to B or from B to
A involves
Hi David,
De : David L Wetzell
>>À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com
>>Envoyé le : Vendredi 17 février 2012 13h37
>>Objet : Re: [EM] JQ wrt SODA
>>
>>
>IRV's got a first mover advantage over SODA and to catch up you need to
>convince someone like Soros to help you market it. It wouldn't
I don't see why anyone would want to use a party-list voting system when there
are more voter-centred alternatives that fit much
better with the political cultures of countries like USA, Canada, UK. Why
anyone would want to use the Hare quota when, with
preferential voting, it can distort the pr
Hi Jameson,
Just a few thoughts.
De : Jameson Quinn
>À : EM ; electionsciencefoundation
>
>Envoyé le : Vendredi 17 février 2012 9h20
>Objet : [EM] SODA arguments
>
>
For those who feel that Bayesian Regret is the be-all-and-end-all measure of
voting system quality, that SODA's BR for 100% st
David L Wetzell > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:31 PM
> > James Gilmour: But why would you want all these differences
> > and complications?
>
> dlw: Because context matters.
I have great difficulty in believing that there are such context specific
differences. I could believe that there
2012/2/17 Kevin Venzke
> Hi Jameson,
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
>*De :* Jameson Quinn
> *À :* EM ;
> electionsciencefoundation
> *Envoyé le :* Vendredi 17 février 2012 9h20
> *Objet :* [EM] SODA arguments
>
> For those who feel that Bayesian Regret is the be-all-and-end-all
> measure of vo
Hi Jameson,
>>
>>De : Jameson Quinn
>>À : Kevin Venzke
>>Cc : election-methods
>>Envoyé le : Vendredi 17 février 2012 19h53
>>Objet : Re: [EM] SODA arguments
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>For those who feel that Bayesian Regret is the be-all-and-end-all measure of
>>>voting system quality, that SOD
>
>
> So in the end, it's more a question of giving a last chance to realize
> that someone isn't really the CW, rather than not electing someone who is
> the CW.
>
>
>
>
> Concerns me a little. I'm not sure candidates would do the thing their
> supporters would want (or even that they themselves f
22 matches
Mail list logo
