With two representatives per district this is a pretty good method, if we want
a two-party system and if we accept the idea of having representatives with
different weights. Spoiler and gerrymandering related problems are greatly
reduced, and the method allows also third parties to grow.
With
On Nov 5, 2011, at 11:35 PM, election-methods-requ...@lists.electorama.com
wrote:
With two representatives per district this is a pretty good method, if we
want a two-party system and if we accept the idea of having representatives
with different weights. Spoiler and gerrymandering related
Yes. It would be a quite natural approach to first count the number of seats
that each party gets based on the number of votes that they got, and then use
the rankings and more complex counting methods within each party separately.
That would have brought the high numbers of 35 and 405 down to
Forest: I think your system (Bubble IRV, in the sense of bubble sort?)
would have some good properties in terms of results. But honestly, I don't
really see the point. We have a number of systems which give good results.
To me, the point of designing new systems is to give good results while
I just realized I didn't give my IRV3/AV3 variant system a name. I think
I'll call it 3-2-1 voting, because it is a pretty natural way (in my mind
at least) to eliminate down in that fashion.
2011/11/6 Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
Forest: I think your system (Bubble IRV, in the sense
Here's a toy model where the math is easy and you can get some interesting
results.
-Voters are distributed evenly from [-1, 1] along the ideology dimension.
-Candidates are represented by an ordered pair (i,q) where i is an ideology
from -1 to 1 and q is a quality from 0 to 2.
-The utility of a
The point of this model is not to accurately reflect reality, but to
demonstrate how easy it is to get some simple, yet perhaps
counterintuitive, results. That's why I repeatedly called the model a toy.
In this case, what I demonstrated in my previous message almost certainly
generalizes to
2011/11/6 MIKE OSSIPOFF nkk...@hotmail.com
Hi Forest--
What made me like IRV (= whole) was that, while not failing in the
Approval bad-example,
it meets (or so I thought) FBC, 1CM, SDSC, 3P and UP.
(1CM is a milder version of SDSC. UP is a stronger version of 3P)
Then, I had to abandon
2011/11/6 Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
wrote:
The point of this model is not to accurately reflect reality, but to
demonstrate how easy it is to get some simple, yet perhaps
counterintuitive,
results. That's why I
On 11/6/11 3:22 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I've watched someone vote in a rank-balloting presidential mock
election. Though she
prefers Nader's policies to those of the Democrats, she ranked all of
the Democrats
over Nader.
it depends on how the ranked ballots are tabulated. i don't see
10 matches
Mail list logo
