Hi,
Manipulability by voter strategy can be rigorously defined without
problematic concepts like preferences or sincere votes or how a dictator
would vote or or how a rational voter would vote given beliefs about
others' votes.
Let X denote the set of alternatives being voted on.
Dear Terry Bouricius,
you wrote (18 Jan 2009):
Do you have any example of FairVote suggesting Condorcet
methods might be unconstitutional?
See appendices 3 and 4 of this study:
http://www.lwvmn.org/LWVMNAlternativeVotingStudyReport.pdf
Markus Schulze
Election-Methods mailing list -
I have an idea for a new defeat-strength measure for the Schulze algorithm
(and similar such as Ranked Pairs and River), which I'll call:
Approval-Domination prioritised Margins:
*Voters rank from the top however many candidates they wish.
Interpreting ranking (in any position, or alternatively
Michael Allan wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
The general problem is that if there's a way of finding out what a certain
person voted, or whether a certain person voted in a particular way, one
can apply pressure to get that person to vote a desired way (to the one
applying the
On Jan 17, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
The mail contained quite good
definitions.
I didn't however agree with the
referenced part below. I think sincere
and
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
The mail contained quite good
definitions.
I didn't however agree with the
referenced part below. I think sincere
and zero-knowledge best strategic
ballot need not be the same. For example
in Range(0,99) my sincere ballot
Hallo,
Steve Eppley wrote (18 Jan 2009):
MAM satisfies all the desirable criteria satisfied
by Beatpath Winner (aka Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential
Dropping--CSSD for short--aka Schulze's method).
Many people consider the Simpson-Kramer MinMax method
to be the best single-winner election
Hallo,
the links to Norman Petry's and Jobst Heitzig's
mail have changed. Norman Petry's mail is now here:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2000-November/004541.html
Jobst Heitzig's mail is now here:
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote:
I believe the practice/principle of having
secret votes also often implies interest
in allowing people to vote as they
privately think. Difference between public
and private opinions is thus often seen to
mean some sort of
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, Jonathan Lundell
jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
The mail contained quite good
definitions.
I didn't
Markus,
The source you cite is a Minnesota League of Women Voters report that
refers to an article with legal analysis in the Minnesota Bar
Association's journal, dealing with the Minnesota statutes and Minnesota
constitution.
Municipal Voting System Reform: Overcoming the Legal Obstacles.
Dear Terry Bouricius,
you wrote (18 Jan 2009):
FairVote is not responsible for reports by
the League of Women Voters or lawyers writing
scholarly articles.
Tony Solgard was president of FairVote Minnesota
when he wrote the quoted article in which he claims
that Condorcet was unconstitutional
12 matches
Mail list logo
