the largest plurality at the expense of
everybody else. How can you think otherwise?
--Bob Richard
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
the help of a rule for handling cycles.
--Bob Richard
Of course if we have a multiwinner method, we don't want all of the winners
concentrated in the center of
the population. That's why we have Proportional Repsentation.
Also the purpose of stochastic single winner methods (lotteries
orthogonal. It results from the fact that voters are normally
distributed on both dimensions.
--Bob Richard
On 7/13/2011 2:19 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Bob Richard wrote:
On 7/13/2011 11:14 AM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Jameson, I'm surprised that you consider a Condorcet method to be
too
It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians) care a
lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't know what it's
called.
--Bob Richard
On 7/7/2011 3:43 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
I actually already touched this question in another mail. And the argument
for using the square root of anything.
--Bob Richard
On 4/16/2011 5:11 PM, Evan Dower wrote:
What are the reasons behind the square roots and cube roots? Can you
point me toward some research papers or something please?
Also, in tiered representation, I would expect the representatives at
one
that is eligible to vote (that is,
count as constituents) is never exactly half.
--Bob Richard
On 4/16/2011 6:26 PM, Evan Dower wrote:
Thanks! Unfortunately, it seems to be an expensive and
difficult-to-find book. Most things I've been able to find in the last
45 minutes (obviously not very long) seems
purpose is to
propose measures to be voted on in referenda. I don't think it can work
for deciding who gets to run the executive branch.
--Bob Richard
A simple baseline method for accomplishing this goal is the random ballot
method.
But there are other methods that accomplish the same thing
the final round totals, and they do match the November 10
final round totals. See here:
http://www.acgov.org/rov/rcv/results/rcvresults_2984.htm
--Bob Richard
On 11/13/2010 10:31 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Nov 13, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Bob Richard wrote:
On 11/13/2010 8:09 AM
Did the polling organization ask any questions about keeping AV but
dropping the requirement that the voter rank all candidates?
--Bob Richard
On 11/6/2010 10:57 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
A telephone poll was conducted in Australia of 1202 random people.
professionally done, attempting to get
Google turned up this description of the Swiss electoral system:
http://www.democracy-building.info/particularities-switzerlands-proportional-election-system.html
I haven't seen this website before. The rest of it looks pretty basic.
--Bob Richard
James Gilmour wrote:
Raph Frank Sent
(to the candidates and voters as well as the
government). A refinement on this is the double complement rule,
described here:
http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=546
I'm not supporting either the double complement rule or the 40%
threshold. I'm just reporting what I know about the rationale.
--
Bob
not endorsing it. I agree with
Matt Shugart on a lot of things, but not on this.
--Bob Richard
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
that would account for such a difference in turnout?
--Bob Richard
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Well, that's sad. Even with a sorta narrow victory the anti-IRVers
will swagger down Church Street like they own the place. We will now
all accept that God instituted the traditional ballot
--Bob Richard
Warren Smith wrote:
I am currently working on writing a paper on this election. In the
event you or anybody can find more poll data, that'd help. I'd be
especially interested if anybody can find a range-voting-style poll.
I'm handicapped by lack of knowledge of the Romanian
for formalizing analysis, not a recommendation.
Yes.
--Bob Richard
Paul Kislanko wrote:
Yes, as usual I wasn't very clear. The way that SHOULD have been worded is:
One can use plurality to count any kind of ranked ballots, but only
plurality to count plurality ballots.
One can use approval to count
in the cities, or other executive offices? That's where a
Condorcet-compliant method might be an improvement. I say might be
because the importance of Condorcet compliance relative to other
criteria is hotly debated, including in this forum.
--Bob Richard
Árpád Magosányi wrote:
Hi!
I am planning
agendas, both would fade in the absence of partisan political
motivations.
--Bob Richard
James Gilmour wrote:
Anthony O'Neal Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:04 PM
This is sad news, no matter what the anti-STV fanatics say. STV had
flaws, it's still a far better system than FPP. The anti-STV
, then of course
you will oppose STV (along with all other methods of proportional
representation). If you prefer the former, then you have some homework to do.
Allocating seats in proportion to votes means, by definition, that some winners
will be opposed by a majority of voters.
--Bob Richard
Kathy Dopp
of the remaining candidates. Otherwise, the
ability to order all of the candidates does not follow from the ability
to pick one from a list longer than the list in the current iteration.
--Bob Richard
Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Jan 25, 2009, at 3:50 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jonathan Lundell
list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
or
reasoning behind this?
Thanks,
Bob
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Bob Richard wrote:
I'm obviously missing something really, really basic here. Can
someone explain to me what it is?
Take it from the FPTP count and recount it
into the N*N array by Condorcet rules ...
I still have no idea
to visit the cities,
because they could reach many voters in little time; and thus the
effect would move from being biased away from cities (in the large
states) to being biased towards them.
Better might be a weighted vote (but who'd set the weights?).
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box
:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:51:55 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
Some states may not be up to Condorcet instantly. Let them
stay with FPTP
until they are ready to move up. Just as a Condorcet voter
can choose to rank
only a single candidate, for a state full of such the counters
can
/IRV%20lawsuit_FVM%20Reply_0.pdf
Kathy Dopp's affidavit may be the only one submitted so far. I'm not
aware of any others.
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/Affadavit-KD-0929-v7.pdf
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http
unconstitutional for the same reasons. I don't recall any arguments in
the plaintiff's briefs that are said to apply to one and not the other.
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org
Raph Frank wrote:
So, this is a legal test
Kathy,
I didn't write the comments you respond to below. I don't have any of
the previous posts available to me so I can't look up who did.
I'm also going to be away from email for tne next two weeks.
--Bob Richard
Kathy Dopp wrote:
--
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 02
Warren Smith wrote:
1. USUALLY it is EASY to find a BETTER-than-honesty
strategy in IRV. This is not just me ranting.
It is in fact a published theorem.
Please post a citation of this published source others can find it.
Thanks in advance.
--Bob Richard
Election-Methods mailing list
27 matches
Mail list logo
