On 8/29/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, yes, but I meant something like that if you're switching from Meek
> (numerical solution for nonlinear systems) to an election system with a
> divisor component, then a single exponential equation might seem simple in
> comparis
Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
True. I just gave it as an option for the perfectionists who aren't
satisfied with Webster, or for the case where the election system is so
complex that adding the calculation wouldn't be noticed
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True. I just gave it as an option for the perfectionists who aren't
> satisfied with Webster, or for the case where the election system is so
> complex that adding the calculation wouldn't be noticed in theg rand s
Raph Frank wrote:
On 8/26/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it uses logarithmic and exponential functions to find the divisor
that corrects the bias that arises with certain assumptions about the
distribution of voters. See
http://rangevoting.org/NewAppo.html . Warren
On 8/26/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it uses logarithmic and exponential functions to find the divisor
> that corrects the bias that arises with certain assumptions about the
> distribution of voters. See
> http://rangevoting.org/NewAppo.html . Warren
> refers to
Raph Frank wrote:
On 8/25/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The divisor method choice differs not just when you're by the threshold,
but also at the "discontinuity points" of their respective rounding. Also, I
think that if you're going to use a divisor method, there's no po
On 8/25/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The divisor method choice differs not just when you're by the threshold,
> but also at the "discontinuity points" of their respective rounding. Also, I
> think that if you're going to use a divisor method, there's no point in not
> us
Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are some limits to the transformation: for instance, you can't have
representation below 1/(assembly size), thus the "power constraint" caveat
of the transformation. Similarly, power is in
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are some limits to the transformation: for instance, you can't have
> representation below 1/(assembly size), thus the "power constraint" caveat
> of the transformation. Similarly, power is in steps of 1/(as
Raph Frank wrote:
On 8/22/08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having different amounts of voting power would simplify multiwinner
election systems considerably. One could, for instance, just do a FPTP count
and then elect the n highest scoring, giving them voting power equal t
10 matches
Mail list logo
