Jonathan,
You got anything to say other than gibberish?
How about a real sentence or two on how exactly you want the US
government to count over 100 million IRV votes for president?
Kathy
>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
I.e. IRV would ne
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 1:34 PM,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
>election-methods@lists.electorama.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electoram
On Nov 8, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Jonathan Lundell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I.e. IRV would necessitate that the federal government be
responsible
for counting all the nation's ballots if IRV were used to elect the
President - so we can expect a
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I.e. IRV would necessitate that the federal government be responsible
>> for counting all the nation's ballots if IRV were used to elect the
>> President - so we can expect all IRV/STV proponents to oppose national
>> p
On Nov 8, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
IRV proponents must oppose the national popular vote because IRV/STV
has to be centrally counted because it is not precinct or state
summable.
I.e. IRV would necessitate that the federal government be responsible
for counting all the nation's ballot
> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 04:11:45 -0800 (PST)
> From: Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [EM] New MN court affidavits etc. (correction)
>
> Dave,
> Are you really comfortable supporting and supplying ammunition to a group of
> avowed FPP supporters in their effort to have IRV declared
> un
> From: Jonathan Lundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [EM] In defense of the Electoral College (was Re: Making
>a Bad Thing Worse)
>> --- En date de : Ven 7.11.08, Markus Schulze > alumni.tu-berlin.de> a ?crit :
>> > Second: It makes it possible that the elections
>> > are run by the
Dear Forest,
you wrote:
> This reminds me of your two urn method based on approval ballots:
> Initialize with all ballots in the first urn.
> While any ballots are left in the first urn ...
> find the approval winner X of these remaining ballots
> circle candidate X on all of the ballots in the
Jobst,
This reminds me of your two urn method based on approval ballots:
Initialize with all ballots in the first urn.
While any ballots are left in the first urn ...
find the approval winner X of these remaining ballots
circle candidate X on all of the ballots in the first urn that ap
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> If the small states resist, the large and middle sized states will attain a
>> majority, and thus through the compact/agreement overrule the others. At
>
At 07:11 AM 11/8/2008, Chris Benham wrote:
Are you really comfortable supporting and supplying ammunition to a
group of avowed FPP supporters in their effort to have IRV declared
unconstitutional?
So many aspects, so little time
(1) Brown v. Smallwood outlawed preferential voting, period,
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional
amen
Hi Chris and Jonathan,
>Kevin,
>Why does having elections for national office run by a "central authority"
>like a federal electoral commission necessarily mean that the "federal
>government" (presumably you refer here to partisan office-holders with
>a stake in the election outcome) would have t
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional
amendment requires a supermajority, and would thus be blocked by the
ve
Trivia: B gets at least 9 votes with Plurality, more if voters recognize
the method and adjust their voting.
Agreed that Plurality and Two-round runoffs should lose against any good
system - as should IRV.
If the court cannot do better, perhaps they should throw the case out for
weakness in
I have been against IRV's way of 'counting' ballots since the first time I
heard of such, long before IRV or EM were born.
So, if the ammunition I supplied has an effect I will be delighted, and
have nothing against others' similar efforts.
DWK
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:40:41 -0800 (PST) Chris B
But Dave Ketchum's example is about how IRV can fail to elect a Condorcet
winner. This candidate gets zero votes under plurality rules and is
immediately eliminated under two-round runoff rules as well. Plurality and
Two-round runoffs are the two systems the plaintiffs are seeking to
preserve,
Below is my recent (Fri.7 Nov.) post with a missing "you" inserted.
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 you have any complaint when in future they are trying to do the
18 matches
Mail list logo
