On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I don't know what the voter would
think. Maybe some voters think that
the two alternatives are equal.
Maybe most prefer the latter
alternative.
In any case the first alternative
may lead sooner to situations where
As a part of my thinking about generalizing STV, which is based on a
weighted positional method (namely, Plurality), I got to think about
what one may say about a loser elimination method's criteria based on
the criteria of the method it's built on top of.
For instance, STV methods are
On Jan 30, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
The war here is over IRV/STV, which Kathy attacks, Terry defends,
and I agree that kathy should win.
You agree that IRV/STV is unconstitutional? On what grounds, exactly?
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
Good Morning, Juho
re: People are not always good at reason based free discussions.
How could they be? What, in our political systems, encourages reason
based discussions? The method I've outlined cultivates such discussion
among the electorate. Not the pseudo-discussion of campaign-based
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Therefore, it's useful to know what election methods one can combine with
loser elimination so that the result passes mutual majority. Now, it might
be that my intuition is wrong here and you can get a good
On Jan 31, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:25:27 -0800 Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
The war here is over IRV/STV, which Kathy attacks, Terry defends,
and I agree that kathy should win.
You agree that IRV/STV is
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
That isn't the case in plurality. Lots of people vote for one of the
top-2 rather than their favourite.
That is called Strategizing. In plurality it
On Jan 31, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Sorry but I want to know that when I choose to vote for a candidate as
my first choice it will increase, not decrease that candidate's
chances to win.
Clearly IRV/STV never allows me to vote for a candidate first and know
that it will help that
On Jan 30, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
4. use a method that does not require computer programs that are so
complex that they are considered to be of exponential runtime to run
and so difficult to accurately write that so far not one US vendor has
written an accurate one (unlike in
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
but I have to say that even vendors of US voting equipment aren't that dumb.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here :).
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
Again what is your view on condorcet methods and approval?
Obviously most other voting methods, approval, range, condorcet, etc.
are worlds superior to IRV/STV because they are precinct-summable,
monotonic, and treat all
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
Again what is your view on condorcet methods and approval?
Obviously most other voting methods, approval, range, condorcet, etc.
are worlds superior
Because STV is merely a revised IRV method, STV has all the same flaws
of IRV, plus some.
Here is a copy of the Plaintiffs Appeal doc that was submitted earlier
this week:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/MNcase/PlaintiffsStatementofCaseCrt-ofAppeals.pdf
I might have made a stronger point
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:46:00 + Raph Frank wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
False. It happens whenever the number of candidates is more than the
number of rankings allowed on a ballot plus the number of seats being
filled.
Ok, fair enough.
Raph Frank wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Therefore, it's useful to know what election methods one can combine with
loser elimination so that the result passes mutual majority. Now, it might
be that my intuition is wrong here and you
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
The vote splitting would go like this: Say a Droop quota votes { A B C } in
each permutation with equal probability, then a bunch of other candidates.
The other voters vote the other candidates randomly before
Fred Gohlke wrote:
Would that I had the wit and wisdom to enthuse others to make our political
infrastructures more democratic ... and more amenable to the dynamics
MacIntyre describes. We would all benefit.
You probably do, in measure with the rest of us. But the
infrastructure you
Juho Laatu wrote:
(I hope the role of public image
doesn't get so strong that people
would start thinking that their
whitened teeth and wide smile are
what they are, more than their
internal thoughts. :-)
All of us shaking hands and kissing babies. :)
Yes, usually that
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no
Subject: Re: [EM] STV and weighted positional methods
Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Dave Ketchum da...@clarityconnect.com
wrote:
Computer scientists have already mathematically proven that counting
IRV/STV is an
19 matches
Mail list logo
