--- On Fri, 6/3/09, Michael Allan wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>
> > (I limit the scope of discussion to
> > single-winner elections, and exlude
> > primaries and other party internal
> > candidate selection and hierarchical
> > proxy based methods.)
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > One approach is to use
--- On Fri, 6/3/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
> > Is the target here to have a method
> > that would allow and encourage having
> > multiple candidates? (to allow the
> > people of Owego to select the winner
> > themselves instead of others/parties
> > telling them what t
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Juho Laatu wrote:
>> One approach is to use a candidate
>> tree...
>
> One could also have a series of runoffs...
Instead of a "parallel of runoffs", which is the tree.
> Fred's method could be used to select a single winner. Would you call it a
> hierarchical pro
Juho Laatu wrote:
> (I limit the scope of discussion to
> single-winner elections, and exlude
> primaries and other party internal
> candidate selection and hierarchical
> proxy based methods.)
>
> . . .
>
> One approach is to use a candidate
> tree where the votes (to individual
> candidates) ar
Juho Laatu wrote:
Is the target here to have a method
that would allow and encourage having
multiple candidates? (to allow the
people of Owego to select the winner
themselves instead of others/parties
telling them what their choices are)
The target here, I think, is to have a method that uses a
Is the target here to have a method
that would allow and encourage having
multiple candidates? (to allow the
people of Owego to select the winner
themselves instead of others/parties
telling them what their choices are)
This can be taken as an independent
challenge. Which methods / systems
lead t
