On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Stephen H. Sosnick
shsosn...@ucdavis.edu wrote:
If your here refers to Meek's method (or, for that matter, to any other
version of STV), then see Appendix 1 and/or read the paragraph in which I
said the following:
I was wondering about the whole principle.
Robert Bristow-Johnson wrote (9 Nov 2009):
Of course IRV, Condorcet, and Borda use different methods to tabulate
the votes and select the winner and my opinion is that IRV (asset
voting, i might call it commodity voting: your vote is a
commodity that you transfer according to your
Warren Smith wrote:
Are there any other voting methods besides IRV, meeting the
'later no harm' criterion?
Woodall's Descending Solid Coalitions method does. Minmax(pairwise
opposition) also does, but it has an awful Plurality failure:
1000: A
1:A=C
1:B=C
1000: B
and C wins in
On Nov 25, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
Are there any other voting methods besides IRV, meeting the
'later no harm' criterion?
Plurality (trivially).
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Chris Benham wrote:
Robert Bristow-Johnson wrote (9 Nov 2009):
Of course IRV, Condorcet, and Borda use different methods to tabulate
the votes and select the winner and my opinion is that IRV (asset
voting, i might call it commodity voting: your vote is a
At 11:21 AM 11/18/2009, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Abd wrote
snip
Under Robert's Rules, if a voter writes something on a ballot, the voter
has voted, and the vote is counted in the basis for majority,
snip
This is not necessarily correct.
Bouricius raises a doubt, but does not impeach the
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
my understanding is that the later-no-harm result happens only if the
case of a Condorcet cycle (the prevalence of which i am dubious about).
where there is a Condorcet winner and that person is elected, is there
still possible later harm?
As far as I
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
my understanding is that the later-no-harm result happens only if
the case of a Condorcet cycle (the prevalence of which i am
dubious about). where there is a Condorcet winner and that person
is
Trying to sort this out as to Condorcet and LNH:
Seems that cycles are involved before, after, or both. And the voters
change their votes, getting more affect on result than they might
expect. So what, assuming the counters properly read the vote?
I agree with those who expect cycles to
Of course, you have to read the voter's mind to know if the change
might have been seen as desirable.
I was into tactics.
One thought I had was a base from which to think of more-or-less
controllable changes: Start with equal size parties and all members
doing bullet voting - result is a
10 matches
Mail list logo
