Dave Ketchum wrote:
With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with weaknesses
most of us in EM recognize.
Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.
I propose Condorcet. One advantage is that states could move up to use
it as soon as ready. States, and even districts
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:56:16 -0800
From: Bob Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending
non-Monotonic voting methods IRV/STV
Part of Kathy's argument here appears to depend on treating the first
and second rounds as if they were
From: Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] New MN court affidavits by those defending
non-Monotonic voting methods IRV/STV
Abd seems to show that TTR cannot be reduced in such a mechanical manner,
You guys seem to forget the biggest difference btwn TTR or
primary/general and IRV
Hallo,
in my opinion, the electoral college has two
advantages to the popular vote.
First: It gives more power to the voters in
smaller states.
[In the USA, the Senate is significantly stronger
than the House of Representatives.
For example: To appoint a Cabinet member or some
other federal
On Nov 7, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Chris Benham wrote:
Presumably then you would favour abolishing the general
presidential election and instead fill the office by a vote
among the members of the Senate.
That would further greatly reduce the chance of a deadlock
between the President and the Senate,
Dear Jonathan Lundell,
I wrote (7 Nov 2008):
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
[Currently, to guarantee that the Equal Protection
Clause is fulfilled, it is only necessary
On Nov 7, 2008, at 2:09 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
[Currently, to guarantee that the Equal Protection
Clause is fulfilled, it is only necessary
Greg wrote (Th.Nov.6):
Those documents make a good case. If you rule IRV/STV unconstitutional
due to non-monotonicity, you have to be prepared to rule open
primaries and top-two primaries unconstitutional as well.
Note also that other arguments by the MN Voter's Alliance would, if
successful,
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Stéphane Rouillon
Exactly, no electoral system can garantee coherence between the order of
preferences of a voter
and the impact the participation of that voter has on the result.
Yea Right! The vote counting method that is employed cannot guarantee
the
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with
weaknesses most of us in EM recognize.
Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.
I propose Condorcet. One advantage is that states could
Let us try a language you understand:
- more voters prefer B to C
- a fraction of those voters will vote for A because they even prefer A to
other candidates
- thus C can get elected because of vote-splitting between A and B
Even if more voters prefer B to C, the result is that C wins over
Thanks for providing another case to show how plurality voting does
not solve the spoiler effect. Neither does IRV. This has zip to do
with monotonicity.
Look up all the definitions again.
Kathy
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Stéphane Rouillon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let us try a language
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Markus Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Markus Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making a Bad
Thing Worse)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 4:09 AM
Hallo,
in my opinion, the electoral
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:09:51 +0100 Markus Schulze wrote:
Hallo,
in my opinion, the electoral college has two
advantages to the popular vote.
...
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
--- On Fri, 11/7/08, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making a Bad
Thing Worse)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED], election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Hi,
--- En date de : Ven 7.11.08, Markus Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
I especially agree with this second point, or at least that it
Perhaps this could get some useful muscle by adding such as:
9 BA
Now we have 34 voting BA. Enough that they can expect to win and may have
as strong a preference between these two as might happen anywhere.
C and D represent issues many feel strongly about - and can want to assert
to
Kevin Venzke wrote (Fri.Nov.7):
Hi,
--- En date de : Ven 7.11.08, Markus Schulze markus.schulze at
alumni.tu-berlin.de a écrit :
Second: It makes it possible that the elections
are run by the governments of the individual
states and don't have to be run by the central
government.
I especially
Dave,
Are you really comfortable supporting and supplying ammunition to a
group of avowed FPP supporters in their effort to have IRV declared
unconstitutional?
Will have any complaint when in future they are trying to do the same
thing to some Condorcet method you like and IRV supporters help
19 matches
Mail list logo
