At 03:01 AM 1/17/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There is a common error here, which is to assume that Range
requires too much information from the voter.
well, it does force the voter to consider the questions oh, i hate
this guy
I couldn't resist this and another. Silly time!
At 04:15 PM 1/16/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
(I'd written previously)
no slip nor nuttin' else under me kilt. want me to show you?
You already did.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Variation on previous post. Silly time!
At 02:31 PM 1/16/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 16, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Robert, your slip is showing.
what slip? i don't have nuttin' under me kilt.
We already knew that.
Silly hat, Off.
Robert, if you want
At 02:31 PM 1/16/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
and FairVote.org will point to experts that strongly advocate IRV.
big fat hairy deel.
They will. Anecdotal. Look, a lot of experts follow the EM list. Have
been for a long time. Very few who aren't politically committed in
some way, such
At 12:52 AM 1/18/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
yes, it's debatable and, since there are 3 different methods all
lifting up different declared winners, it's subjective.
Well, it's subjective without preference strength information. With
that information, an objective assessment is
Dave Ketchum wrote (18 Jan 2010):
In response I will pick on LNH for not being a serious reason for
rejecting Condorcet - that such failure can occur with reasonable
voting choices for which the voter knows what is happening. Quoting
from Wikipedia:
For example in an election conducted
Abd has repeated an erroneous statement about Nicolaus Tideman's
assessment of voting methods. Abd wrote:
snipFairVote has really poisoned the air, citing Tideman, for example,
when criticising other methods but never mentioning that Tideman considers
IRV unacceptable. snip
Tideman does NOT
At 01:13 PM 1/20/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 09:09 AM 1/17/2010, Chris Benham wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote (17 Jan 2010):
To me, it seems that the method becomes Approval-like when (number of
graduations) is less than (number of candidates). When that is the case,
you *have* to
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 20, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Terry Bouricius ter...@burlingtontelecom.net
wrote:
Abd has repeated an erroneous statement about Nicolaus Tideman's
assessment of voting methods. Abd wrote:
snipFairVote has really poisoned the air, citing Tideman, for
example,
when
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote (18 Jan 2010):
In response I will pick on LNH for not being a serious reason for
rejecting Condorcet - that such failure can occur with reasonable
voting choices for which the voter knows what is happening. Quoting
from
If the Condorcet method is susceptible to the phenomena of a
nonwinning candidate whose presence in the election changes who would
otherwise win the election, all else being equal.
Could someone please provide me with an example of the spoiler effect
occuring with the Condorcet method of
On Jan 20, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Is the Condorcet method susceptible to the phenomena of a
nonwinning candidate whose presence in the election changes who would
otherwise win the election, all else being equal?
i changed the sentence form into a question. i hope that was
Thanks Robert,
My question was strictly about Condorcet and I know already how to
generate IRV and spoiler cases, as I said.
Are you claiming that Condorcet methods are never subjected to a case
of a nonwinning candidate changing who would otherwise win?
This seems logical, given the method and
On Jan 20, 2010, at 7:54 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Thanks Robert,
My question was strictly about Condorcet and I know already how to
generate IRV and spoiler cases, as I said.
Are you claiming that Condorcet methods are never subjected to a case
of a nonwinning candidate changing who would
On Jan 20, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Variation on previous post. Silly time!
At 02:31 PM 1/16/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 16, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Robert, your slip is showing.
what slip? i don't have nuttin' under me kilt.
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:52 AM 1/18/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
yes, it's debatable and, since there are 3 different methods all
lifting up different declared winners, it's subjective.
Well, it's subjective without preference strength
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
i think that the answer is no, if a Condorcet winner exists and that
all bets are off if a CW does not exist, except, perhaps for these
strategy-resistant methods such as Markus Schulze's method. i sorta
understand it, but since he hangs here, i think Markus
I've been thinking a bit about party list PR methods, since knowing them
might permit one to design individual multiwinner methods better,
knowing how they should behave when everybody votes in a bloc.
(Because of outside effects, I may not reply as quickly as before.)
In any case, what I was
On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:29 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
i think that the answer is no, if a Condorcet winner exists and
that all bets are off if a CW does not exist, except, perhaps for
these strategy-resistant methods such as Markus Schulze's
method. i
19 matches
Mail list logo
