On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 02:18:53PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
A:C=69:31
Default option: A.
Quorum: 30.
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:18:44AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped.
Huh?
3. Any (non-default) option which does not
On Sun, May 25, 2003 at 08:20:11PM +0200, Markus Schulze wrote:
You wrote (25 May 2003):
C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped.
B and A are the only remaining options, and B defeats A.
B wins.
That's strange! The majority requirement makes the default
option lose.
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 12:14:55AM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
1. Approval voting has obvious incentives to strategic voting.
Yes, that's true. There are two responses to this: one is that the
benefits are worth the risks; the other is that (hopefully) the incentives
to vote honestly outweigh
Hi,
Andrew Pimlott wrote:
1. Approval voting has obvious incentives to strategic voting. The
electionmethods people consider it clearly inferior to Condorcet
voting, in part for this reason. Specifically, why don't you
think this is a problem with the proposed method?
With
Hi,
Markus Schulze wrote:
In short: The winner according to Manoj's May 15 proposal
can be cyclic even when the voters don't change their minds.
Wrong. Reason: The default option is never keep the current status, it's
further discussion. If we run a vote which results in action A, the vote
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 02:45:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And, as I've already posted elsewhere, you'll note there's no problem
at all here if number of votes received is twice the quorum, which,
historically, it almost always is.
I haven't had time to follow all the long discussion,
Hi,
Guido Trotter wrote:
If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no problem with
the proposed system, why not add to the current proposal the fact that the
votes cast, altogether, have to be at least 2*quorum? This will also ensure
that, before taking a vote into
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 12:48:32PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote:
If we are sure that if 2*quorum people cast a vote there is no problem with
the proposed system, why not add to the current proposal the fact that the
votes cast, altogether, have to be at least 2*quorum?
Because that would have
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 08:20:33AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
With Approval, there's no difference between strategic voting and expressing
your preference.
I don't know what you mean. The basic strategy for approval voting
(as on electionmethods.org) is to vote for the lesser of evils
9 matches
Mail list logo
