I see below that leeswalker is doing his best for IRV.
Would be useful if some of us could do better for Condorcet - which I
see as a competitor that should win.
TRC - True Ranked Choice - my thought for a possible label for
Condorcet, based on:
Like IRV, let's voters rank their
If someone can do better, fine.
I DO argue that such as Burlington demonstrate TRC doing better than
IRV at truly seeing voter desires.
On Aug 23, 2010, at 2:38 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
I see below that leeswalker is doing his best
Dear Alex Small
your FBC manuscript looks interesting. The typesetting is sometimes
annoying (use of * for multiply).
Kevin Venzke is quite right he invented MDDA not me.
Ossipoff has 2 Fs. Warren D. Smith has a D.
Your paper is long. It needs to be written to be more accessible.
Think how
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I see below that leeswalker is doing his best for IRV.
Would be useful if some of us could do better for Condorcet - which I
see as a competitor that should win.
TRC - True Ranked Choice - my thought for a possible label for
Condorcet, based on:
Like IRV, let's
On 8/23/10, Warren Smith warren@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Alex Small
your FBC manuscript looks interesting. The typesetting is sometimes
annoying (use of * for multiply).
Kevin Venzke is quite right he invented MDDA not me.
Ossipoff has 2 Fs. Warren D. Smith has a D.
Your paper is long.
The way I read it, it seems he suggests SFBC is too strong. If you
insist upon SFBC, you get a method that treats at least the two first
ranks equally, either directly (type 1) or indirectly (type 2). Thus you
can either insist on SFBC and have methods that treat the top two of a
voter's
Dave,
I like all your ideas here. It is amazing that people continue to
misinform by making the false claim that IRV finds majority winners
and solves the spoiler problem, when IRV does neither, and in fact
fails more of Arrow's fairness criteria than plurality voting by
exhibiting
On Aug 23, 2010, at 5:14 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
On 8/23/10, Warren Smith warren@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Alex Small
your FBC manuscript looks interesting. The typesetting is sometimes
annoying (use of * for multiply).
...
And quit with the * for multiply.
maybe he means * for
really?? Nah, couldn't be...
maybe he means * for convolution.
:-/
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org -- add your endorsement (by clicking
endorse as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
