Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
re: I agree with your first point [that extending the rights of
humans to non-human entities is a flawed concept], but the
precedent seems to go all the way back to 1886.
Precedent has a place in our lives but it ought not, and need not, be
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 04:44 AM 12/28/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
[it was written:] I am satisfied that there are perfectly adequate
vote once
systems available for all public elections, both single-office
elections and assembly elections.
If they
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:36 AM 12/28/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 9:45 AM
The UK is also parliamentary, so I suppose there would be few places
where you could actually have a runoff.
Given that all members of the UK Parliament
I take offense at Abd repeatedly suggesting I am a liar or am engaging in
deception. We have a legitimate difference of opinion about the
appropriate use of the term majority and interpretation of RRONR.
At the outset, we might all agree that no system can really assure a
_true_ majority
Just for clarity, can we agree that
In Bucklin, after the first round, there is no majority.
is a non-sequitor? There aren't rounds in Bucklin. All counts for all
(#voters ranking alternative x = rank n are known simultaneously.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
At 12:55 PM 12/30/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
However, consider this: the Plurality voting system (FPTP)
encourages compromise already. There would have been more sincere
first preference votes. My guess, though, is that the use of, say,
Bucklin, would have
At 12:46 PM 12/30/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:48 AM 12/28/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
That makes the entire cycle, including polls and feedback, into one
election system. Method is too narrow, because the system
