Warren Smith wrote:
It's very hard to get people to sign statements, and the difficulty
increases with the length.
My own experience points to a similar conclusion. I once formulated a
laconic rule of thumb (ten words per signature/vote) and a process
of consensus by erasure.
On 9/7/2011 10:49 PM, Andy Jennings wrote:
I do like the executive summary. Maybe it's a little too long?
I think we could do without the sentence Some good Condorcet methods
are:...
I do think the PR section could be significantly shortened.
I made a few changes. Feel free to review, roll
I think part of the problem then is that as far as I can see there is no clear
and easily understandable description of Double range voting in existence.
Also, it's not intuitively obvious to everyone what the different scores should
mean. Voting ABC in a ranked list is clear. I know there are
I think the executive summary needs to mention that plurality = First Past the
Post. The term plurality is basically never used in the UK and most people
wouldn't know what it means, so to cover as many countries as we can, we need
to use the terms that each country uses.
From: Andy Jennings
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Toby Pereira tdp2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think part of the problem then is that as far as I can see there is no
clear and easily understandable description of Double range voting in
existence.
Let epsilon0 be a constant.
RULES OF DOUBLE RANGE VOTING
1. Each
Good Afternoon, Michael
re: We could always try again. The initial focus should be less
on building up a text and more on uncovering agreement over
the content.
You are, of course, correct. It's generally a good idea to put the
horse in front of the cart. The way to compile a
Out of the three summaries of the declarations, I think Richard's is the
most efficient.
PZ
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Toby Pereira tdp2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think the executive summary needs to mention that plurality = First Past
the Post. The term plurality is basically never used
Dear all,
I shortened the part on multiple rounds of voting after someone opted to
remove the section entirely.
To me multiple rounds is an important issue, as they might improve the
election result and ease the transition to better election methods as
explained in my previous mails (will resend
From: Warren Smith warren@gmail.com
I wasn't denying that the honest sub-ballots had a meaning, but that the
meaning of a score on a range ballot is probably less clear to mot people than
the meaning of a score on a ranked ballot. This was my point, not that the
range ballot lacked
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Richard Fobes electionmeth...@votefair.org
wrote:
Removing the names of the good Condorcet methods is not acceptable. (We
can change the word good if that's the issue.)
Already we dropped Condorcet-Tideman (ranked pairs) from the list because
Tideman himself
Maybe great Condorcet methods could be acceptable...
Removing the names of the good Condorcet methods is not acceptable.
(We can change the word good if that's the issue.)
Stéphane Rouillon, stephane.rouil...@sympatico.ca, Engineer in Physics,
M.Sc.A. Mechanical Engineering,
Ph.D. Applied
11 matches
Mail list logo
