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).
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo