Re: [EM] Survey of Multiwinner Methods

2013-01-07 Thread ⸘Ŭalabio‽
2013-01-07T01:04:52Z, “Greg Nisbet” : > Hey, I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of multiwinner methods are > currently known that are reasonably good and don't require districts, > parties, or candidates that are capable of making decisions (I'm looking at > you, asset voting).

Re: [EM] Survey of Multiwinner Methods

2013-01-07 Thread Andrew Myers
On 1/7/13 4:04 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote: Hey, I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of multiwinner methods are currently known that are reasonably good and don't require districts, parties, or candidates that are capable of making decisions (I'm looking at you, asset voting). I will once again men

Re: [EM] Survey of Multiwinner Methods

2013-01-07 Thread Jameson Quinn
2013/1/7 Greg Nisbet > Hey, I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of multiwinner methods are > currently known that are reasonably good and don't require districts, > parties, or candidates that are capable of making decisions (I'm looking at > you, asset voting). > Like Abd, I wonder at the bas

Re: [EM] Survey of Multiwinner Methods

2013-01-07 Thread Jameson Quinn
2013/1/7 Greg Nisbet > Hey, I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of multiwinner methods are > currently known that are reasonably good and don't require districts, > parties, or candidates that are capable of making decisions (I'm looking at > you, asset voting). > Like Abd, I wonder at the bas

Re: [EM] Survey of Multiwinner Methods

2013-01-07 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 04:04 PM 1/7/2013, Greg Nisbet wrote: Hey, I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of multiwinner methods are currently known that are reasonably good and don't require districts, parties, or candidates that are capable of making decisions (I'm looking at you, asset voting). Right. We only w

[EM] Comments on MJ discussion (IIAC)

2013-01-07 Thread Michael Ossipoff
Andy: > IIAC merely says that removal of a losing candidate shouldn't change > the result. > > IIAC says nothing about whether there should be another election if a > losing candidate calls for one without hir in it.. > > IIAC is merely about consistent count-mechanics, given an unchanging > set o

Re: [EM] Comments on MJ discussion

2013-01-07 Thread Andy Jennings
> IIAC merely says that removal of a losing candidate shouldn't change > the result. > > IIAC says nothing about whether there should be another election if a > losing candidate calls for one without hir in it.. > > IIAC is merely about consistent count-mechanics, given an unchanging > set of ballo

[EM] Comments on MJ discussion

2013-01-07 Thread Michael Ossipoff
> Removing a losing candidate from the ballots and from the election, > and then re-counting the ballots, shouldn't change the winner. > > Approval and Score pass. > Michael, I find it very inconsistent for you to argue so adamantly for voters to use maximal strategy [endquote] I was just saying

[EM] Survey of Multiwinner Methods

2013-01-07 Thread Greg Nisbet
Hey, I'd like to get a sense of what sorts of multiwinner methods are currently known that are reasonably good and don't require districts, parties, or candidates that are capable of making decisions (I'm looking at you, asset voting). I had an idea for a variant of STV where the "elimination orde

Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1

2013-01-07 Thread Andy Jennings
Jonathan, In addition to Ualabio's argument that cutting down the number of candidates is good so as not to overwhelm voters, I believe that almost every voting system ever invented can benefit from winnowing down candidates that are _too similar_ before the election. Political parties seem like