First,
I want to thank everyone who replied to my question. I'm buried in my
usual unpaid work, or I'd be more conversant - trying to get three
projects done in a very short time and no time for them all.
I do appreciate all the answers and info.
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:01:46 -0400
From:
I imagine the biggest thing on offer (for N = 0 to 9) is the distant
promise of what it's designed to do. We have to express that promise,
and hold it out as worth reaching for (which it is!).
Raph Frank wote:
It has potential as an organising system. However, with only 10
people,
On 9/24/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, if Nmax (population size) is low, then a voting medium is not
needed. The purpose of the medium is support the growth of the
discussion in the population as a whole. By providing structural
handholds for agreement, it enables the
On 9/24/08, Michael Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, the translation barrier (from open to secret ballots) is another
protection. It's partial. On its own, it cannot protect an open vote
from purchase for its signalling value (like a paid endorsement, or a
meeting stuffed with a paid
At 12:04 PM 9/23/2008, you wrote:
Do you or does anyone know if this muti-seat IRV method that splits
votes of voters to their second choice candidates after some winning
candidates receive the threshold amount of votes, exhibits
non-monotonicity or not like the normal IRV method does? If so,
At 03:49 PM 9/23/2008, Raph Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be OK as long as the random selection is actually reasonably random.
In theory. But Kathy Dopp is a voting security expert. They like to
be able to
On Sep 24, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In theory. But Kathy Dopp is a voting security expert. They like to
be able to recount elections and, if no errors were made, get the
same results. While this can be done with pseudo-random sequences,
I'm not sure I'd trust local
Good Afternoon, Michael
This is in response to your message to me on September 8th.
You describe what you have in mind via at least one level of abstraction
and, for me, that adds a degree of difficulty. For example, and please
forgive me obtuseness, I don't understand your closing
(forwarding this)
Hi,
Did you intend to send your reply to the full list? I haven't replied
to the list just in case.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:49 PM 9/23/2008, you wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Kathy Dopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is no confidence in the US regarding EITHER the counting OR the
maintenance of the rolls. Parties in power purge the rolls of voters known
to be for party-not-in-power so regularly it's not even addressed by the
courts any more, and NEGATIVE votes for candidates have been known to be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] (on 24 September
2008 23:05:05 +), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(=?iso-8859-1?B?U3TpcGhhbmUgUm91aWxsb24=?=) wrote:
for an anti-fraud purpose, the capacity to repeat the counting operation is
a must. Hence I recommand to use a reproductible random procedure to break
ties.
Hello Allen,
simply using the number of ballots involved in the tie is enough. Compare
its rest using euclidian divison by the number of involved candidates to the
alphabetical rank of the candidates.
Simple, effective and greatly equiprobable. It works for winner selection as
for elemination
12 matches
Mail list logo
