On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Dave Ketchumda...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
I assume more cooperation than this.
I think we are talking orthogonally.
The NPV plan is that some of the States enter into a compact, and then
they vote their EC votes as a single unit.
You can reasonably assume that
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Dave Ketchumda...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
Approval data - needs thought but my initial thought is as if each
approval was a plurality vote - does mean a voter approving 2 gets 2 votes
counted but relative counts per candidate comes out ok.
IRV or
On Jul 2, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Dave
Ketchumda...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
Approval data - needs thought but my initial thought is as if each
approval was a plurality vote - does mean a voter approving 2 gets
2 votes
counted but relative
PM
To: Raph Frank
Cc: EM
Subject: Re: [EM] National Popular Vote Condorcet
On Jul 2, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Dave
Ketchumda...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
Approval data - needs thought but my initial thought is as if each
approval
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Without going into detail, if all states do not use the same
collection
method, applying a national counting method that isn't the lowest
common
denominator method, there would be a violation of the equal process
clause of the 14th Amendment.
Ok, I thought, and still feel, that the topic needed some airing.
With the EC, and without NPV, each state can do their own thing for
deciding what instruction to give their EC members - and could do
better than Plurality if they choose.
With NPV there is need for more thought:
Make
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Dave Ketchumda...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
Each state controls how it interacts with its voters - so let them choose
their own way, such that their voters' desires get properly added into the
national X*X array.
This depends, there needs to be rules on what
Hallo,
this problem had already been mentioned here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.politics.election-methods/10991
Markus Schulze
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
One can infer a plurality ballot from any kind of ranked ballot, but
not the
other way around.
One can infer an approval ballot from any kind of ranked ballot that
allows
equal ranks, but not the other way around.
Except for strategic
vote
insincerely.
It's more a technique for formalizing analysis, not a recommendation.
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Lundell [mailto:jlund...@pobox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:23 AM
To: Paul Kislanko
Cc: 'Dave Ketchum'; 'EM'
Subject: Re: [EM] National Popular Vote
To: Paul Kislanko
Cc: 'Dave Ketchum'; 'EM'
Subject: Re: [EM] National Popular Vote Condorcet
On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:44 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
One can infer a plurality ballot from any kind of ranked ballot, but
not the
other way around.
One can infer an approval ballot from any kind
Now it is July 1 and I have responses from kisla...@airmail.net, jlund...@pobox.com
, Markus Schulze.
Merging is possible, provided each state provides and describes data
suitable for this purpose, such as:
Condorcet X*X array. Because of possibility of extra candidates
from some
Food for thought:
The National Popular Vote effort is a proper attempt to hear voters
better in electing a President - votes from all states would get
counted, unlike the present problem that, in many states, all of the
states electoral votes will go to the known and expected winner of
The idea is a good one, but there's no practical way to make it work.
If all you have is plurality counts, you don't have enough information to
retrieve the voters' Condorcet pairwise preferences. If what you mean is use
States' plurality results to form a condorcet matrix, you get even worse
14 matches
Mail list logo
