At 10:17 PM 12/26/2008, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Fact that the label we are discussing, "write-ins", has been used
for a CA purpose should not be allowed to interfere with our trying
for something usable throughout the US.
Here is some New York or other information:
http://www.nysthirdparty.com/ho
Fact that the label we are discussing, "write-ins", has been used for a CA
purpose should not be allowed to interfere with our trying for something
usable throughout the US.
The CA document is worth studying for useful thought - but deserves care to
avoid what they say that does not fit our ne
At 06:40 PM 12/26/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Subject changed: was > Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a
serious alternative 2
Jonathan Lundell > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 5:58 PM
> California write-in rules lie somewhere in that gap. Here's a sample:
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/electio
On Dec 26, 2008, at 3:40 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jonathan Lundell > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 5:58 PM
California write-in rules lie somewhere in that gap. Here's a sample:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/cand_qual_wi.pdf
These requirements must be met in order for write-in votes to be
At 06:54 PM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:32 PM
> > At 09:55 AM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
> >Abd, you are a great wriggler.
>
> Thanks. I'm not a butterfly to be pinned to your specimen board.
Abd, I don't want to pin you or a
At 09:04 AM 12/26/2008, Michael Allan wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> "Alienated" should be considered a relative term. Compared to what?
The standard for an *alienable* medium is money. Spend it, and it's
gone forever. A vote is like that. Cast a vote, and it's gone. Not
quite forever,
Subject changed: was > Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious
alternative 2
Jonathan Lundell > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 5:58 PM
> California write-in rules lie somewhere in that gap. Here's a sample:
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/cand_qual_wi.pdf
> These requirements must b
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 3:15 AM
> > On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:25:09 - James Gilmour wrote:
> > Yes, all the marked preferences will allow the voter's one vote to be
> > used in as many pair-wise comparisons as the voter wishes to
> > participate in.
> >
> Voter "wishes"
An exchnage that escaped the list - acccidentally.
> > > > --- On Thu, 12/25/08, James Gilmour wrote:
> > > > I do not think you have to be anywhere near the zero
> > > > first-preferences Condorcet winner scenario to be in the sphere of
> > > > "politically unacceptable". I am quite certain th
At 12:46 PM 12/26/2008, Dave Ketchum wrote:
We have a nominee list with much of the formality you describe.
Then we have write-ins, with very little formality.
Too little, probably. I know of a case where a write-in should have
won the election, by law, but the clerk didn't count the votes. I
At 05:42 PM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:01 PM
> At 09:05 AM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
> >My personal view is that runoff is not desirable and would be an
> >unnecessary and unwanted expense. I know runoff voting systems are
At 05:57 AM 12/26/2008, Juho Laatu wrote:
One basic reason is of course that
Condorcet methods are too tedious to
hand count in large elections with
many candidates. Obviously Condorcet
is now better off due to the
availability of computers.
There is a simple Condorcet method which only require
At 05:56 AM 12/26/2008, Juho Laatu wrote:
One approach that is used in practice and
that to some extent avoids the problems of
- "few random votes to random people"
- difficulty to identify to whom the votes actually are meant
- votes to people that do not want to be candidates
- having too many
At 05:31 PM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
It is not a question of my thinking in terms of plurality - that
is where our electors (UK and USA) are coming from. It is my
experience (nearly five decades of campaigning) that UK electors
attach great importance to their first preference.
*Of
On Dec 26, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
We have a nominee list with much of the formality you describe.
Then we have write-ins, with very little formality.
James frowns on such, saying that the UK properly demands more
formality in dealing with the needed exceptions to normal nomina
We have a nominee list with much of the formality you describe.
Then we have write-ins, with very little formality.
James frowns on such, saying that the UK properly demands more formality in
dealing with the needed exceptions to normal nomination.
I agree that present write-ins are too infor
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> "Alienated" should be considered a relative term. Compared to what?
The standard for an *alienable* medium is money. Spend it, and it's
gone forever. A vote is like that. Cast a vote, and it's gone. Not
quite forever, but for a long time. (Caveat elector.)
The s
--- On Wed, 24/12/08, James Gilmour wrote:
> IRV has been
> used for public elections for many decades in several
> countries. In contrast, despite having been around for
> about 220 years, the
> Condorcet voting system has not been used in any public
> elections anywhere, so far as I am aware.
One approach that is used in practice and
that to some extent avoids the problems of
- "few random votes to random people"
- difficulty to identify to whom the votes actually are meant
- votes to people that do not want to be candidates
- having too many candidates
is to require people to collect
One more approach is to allow "ranked
ranking preferences", e.g. A>B>>C>D>>>E>F.
Juho
--- On Fri, 26/12/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
> Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2
> To: eutychus_sl...@yahoo.com
> Cc: election-methods@list
--- On Thu, 25/12/08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> That a 5% first-preference support candidate could be the
> Condorcet winner is radically improbable under anything like
> current conditions. For it to happen would probably take
> very different conditions, which would probably mean that we
> d
--- On Wed, 24/12/08, James Gilmour wrote:
> The myth that single-member-district voting systems
> "work well" for assembly elections when there are
> only two parties in very
> persistent. We must all work together and do everything we
> can to kill it off because it is just a big, big lie
> pr
22 matches
Mail list logo
