Reply
Warren Smith said:
>you note that any time a new candidate X entering the race swings the
winner from Y to Z, that benefits somebody (namely Z, here)
This is not true in most if not all of the General Elections. 90-99% of the
General elections involve two major candidates and so
Dave Ketchum Said
>Best to leave US Presidential out of this debate because of its
peculiarities. Time enough to go there once the basic topic is resolved for
general use.
>Also matters that Plurality is the major election method in the US.
Plurality DESPERATELY needs Primaries to try to av
Actually, upon trying to crystallize exactly what bothers me about IRV
constitution-wise, I realized something:
Suppose you want a voting system (with honest voters)
to be "unmanipulable by sponsoring rival candidates."
I.e. you want that it never can help a candidate's winnign
chances to sponsor
Venzke:
In my opinion you could find that a failure of virtually any criterion is
unconstitutional. That's why I don't think this is a promising way to try
to defeat methods we don't like. I think it's mostly dangerous.
I say we had best not give the referees invitations to ban all our methods.
--
Best to leave US Presidential out of this debate because of its
peculiarities. Time enough to go there once the basic topic is resolved
for general use.
Also matters that Plurality is the major election method in the US.
Plurality DESPERATELY needs Primaries to try to avoid parties having
mul
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:02:55 +0200 Juho Laatu wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 17:33 , James Gilmour wrote:
>
>
>>Juho Laatu > Sent: 27 December 2007 07:36
>>
>>>Condorcet methods are not very widely used today.
>>
>>Juho
>>Are Condorcet methods used for any public elections today? Have
>>they ev
On Dec 27, 2007, at 22:39 , Don&Cathy Hoffard wrote:
In this example I will uses the 2008 US Presidential Election only
to illustrate a point - you could assume a state Governor or
Senators race
We currently have about 25 candidates running for President of the
United States.
9 Democr
On Dec 27, 2007 1:00 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:33:37 - James Gilmour wrote:
> > Juho Laatu > Sent: 27 December 2007 07:36
> >>Condorcet methods are not very widely used today.
> >
> > Are Condorcet methods used for any public elections today? Have t
Warren Smith > Sent: 27 December 2007 21:14
> The difficulty with Gilmour's "contingency" view is that some
> contingencies are a lot more likely to arise than others.
"Contingency" is not Gilmour's view - it is a fact. An IRV election is an
exhaustive ballot (elimination of the one lowest
ca
On Dec 27, 2007, at 17:33 , James Gilmour wrote:
> Juho Laatu > Sent: 27 December 2007 07:36
>>
>> Condorcet methods are not very widely used today.
>
> Juho
> Are Condorcet methods used for any public elections today? Have
> they ever been used for any public elections? I ask only because I
Warren,
--- Warren Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> In my opinion a case can be made that IRV is unconstituional.
> I'm not necessarily agreeing with that, but I think it has some validity.
In my opinion you could find that a failure of virtually any criterion is
unconstitutional. That's why
Gilmour notes (as he has before, seems to be his new theme)
that IRV votes should be interpreted as specifying "contingency choices".
Therefore (he argues)
"If the Returning Officer applies the IRV rules correctly, the IRV counting
system treats all preferences
on all ballots in a completely fair
Hi,
--- Don&Cathy Hoffard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> If we have to have 5 candidate in the general election why not have the
> TOP
> 5 (based on the Condorcet method)
> Condorcet ranking (assumed based on margins and averages)
Selecting the top X candidates using Condorcet, and averaging pa
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:33:37 - James Gilmour wrote:
> Juho Laatu > Sent: 27 December 2007 07:36
>
>>Condorcet methods are not very widely used today.
>
>
> Juho
> Are Condorcet methods used for any public elections today? Have they ever
> been used for any public elections? I ask only be
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:35:44 +0200 Juho Laatu wrote:
> Dave already explained the use of the equal sign. I was just lazy to
> invent any specific order in my example ballots so I used simple
> ties. Voters are free to list all of them in their order of preference.
>
And equal unites a pair of
In this example I will uses the 2008 US Presidential Election only to
illustrate a point - you could assume a state Governor or Senators race
We currently have about 25 candidates running for President of the United
States.
9 Democrats
9 Republicans
3 (assumed) Green
2 (assumed) Libertarian
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:14:56 - James Gilmour wrote:
> Kevin Venzke > Sent: 27 December 2007 02:16
>
>>--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>>
>>>As I have said
>>>before, and in other EM threads, the preferences recorded on an IRV
>>>ballot are CONTINGENCY choices. It would be a
Hi,
In case anyone is interested, I created a new method poll at
http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Method_evaluation_poll_2008
I trimmed out many methods, but feel free to add back in (see bottom of
page for a link to the old poll) whatever you want to rate.
Kevin Venzke
_
On Dec 27, 2007 8:20 AM, Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- rob brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> > Has anyone bothered setting up a condorcet poll on which is the best
> > condorcet method? (there is the obvious issue of which method to
> choose,
> > but since it doesn't actually co
Rob,
--- rob brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Dec 27, 2007 7:33 AM, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In terms of achieving practical reform it is a serious problem that
> that
> > there are several methods and that there is no consensus on which to
> use.
> >
>
> And lack o
On Dec 27, 2007 7:33 AM, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In terms of achieving practical reform it is a serious problem that that
> there are several methods and that there is no consensus on which to use.
>
And lack of consensus among people whose specialty is finding ways of coming
t
Warren Smith > Sent: 27 December 2007 05:11
> In these examples IRV *ignores* some preferences while
> counting others. That seems unfair and arbitrary.
This may "seem unfair and arbitrary" to Smith, but it is neither. Smith, like
many others, has misinterpreted the preference
information reco
Juho Laatu > Sent: 27 December 2007 07:36
>
> Condorcet methods are not very widely used today.
Juho
Are Condorcet methods used for any public elections today? Have they ever been
used for any public elections? I ask only because I
am not aware of any examples, for public elections, and it wo
Kevin Venzke > Sent: 27 December 2007 02:16
> --- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > As I have said
> > before, and in other EM threads, the preferences recorded on an IRV
> > ballot are CONTINGENCY choices. It would be a great help to all these
> > discussions if both proponents a
24 matches
Mail list logo
