Kristofer, Fred and Jameson,
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
This can also be used to validate Warren's proof. Say that we have
one set of ballots X_a, where A is the unique winner, and another
set of ballots X_b, where A is not the unique winner. Then by
permuting X_a into X_b one vote at a
Good Morning, JQ
re: ... I do not think that you can ... conclude that any method
which does not reach all those goals (i.e., all voters being
able to participate in meaningful fashion) is thereby
useless. In fact, I think that such imperfect methods are
necessary stepping
Thanks for the link to Rousseau, Mike. I haven't read it, but need to.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Good Afternoon, Mr. Quinn
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 @ 07:25:31 you cited a portion of Michael Allan's
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 @ 23:24:48 post to me, to wit:
... But if we (this is my hope) can cogently demonstrate this
failing to the experts in this list, especially in terms of
the voting
2011/8/31 Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net
Good Afternoon, Mr. Quinn
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 @ 07:25:31 you cited a portion of Michael Allan's Sun,
28 Aug 2011 @ 23:24:48 post to me, to wit:
... But if we (this is my hope) can cogently demonstrate this
failing to the experts in this
(Resubmitting to the list as Michael Allan suggested :-)
Michael Allan wrote:
Warren Smith wrote:
--no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election. This
is true in any election method which is capable of having at least
two outcomes.
Proof: simply change ballots one by one until
Jameson, Jonathan and Fred,
Jameson Quinn wrote:
...all of which merely serve to minimize its practical importance,
not to assail its mathematical validity.
I guess the critique is not aimed so much at the formal, mathematical
validity of the method, as its actual validity in the real world.
Dave Ketchum wrote:
NOT true, for the vote, without the voter's vote, could be a tie - and
the voter's vote mattering.
That notion of effect has several drawbacks:
...all of which merely serve to minimize its practical importance, not to
assail its mathematical validity.
... But if
On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:25 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
NOT true, for the vote, without the voter's vote, could be a tie - and
the voter's vote mattering.
That notion of effect has several drawbacks:
...all of which merely serve to minimize its practical importance, not
From: matt welland m...@kiatoa.com
To: EM Methods election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] the meaning of a vote (or lack thereof) and a
(new?) metric for voting systems
Here in the US we have these things called polls which happen
periodically prior to the real
Good Afternoon, Michael
re: ... every voter has that right (to influence the choice of
candidates and the issues on which they vote), but is
forever cheated of it precisely because the election method
grants no electoral power whatsoever to the voter, but
instead renders his
On Sat, 2011-08-27 at 16:22 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
Dave Ketchum wrote:
TRULY, this
Matt and Dave,
Matt Welland wrote:
The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless
to discuss. ...
The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote is
the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an
electoral issue. Do you mean:
(a) What
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 04:32 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
Matt and Dave,
Matt Welland wrote:
The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless
to discuss. ...
The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote is
the formal expression of what a person
On Aug 28, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
Matt and Dave,
Matt Welland wrote:
The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless
to discuss. ...
The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote is
the formal expression of what a person thinks in
An example, due to Samuel Merrill (of Brams, Fishburn, and
Merrill fame), simply normalizes the
scores on each range ballot the same way that we convert a
garden variety normal random variable into
a standard one: i.e. on each ballot subtract the mean (of scores
on that ballot) and
Matt, Dave and Fred,
The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant ...
The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote
is the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an
electoral issue. Do you mean:
(a) What the person thinks is irrelevant
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 23:24 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
Matt, Dave and Fred,
The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant ...
The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote
is the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an
electoral
Warren Smith wrote:
--no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election. This
is true in any election method which is capable of having at least
two outcomes.
Proof: simply change ballots one by one until the outcome changes.
At the moment it changes, that single ballot changed an
On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if
you think that candidate X would
vote like you on a random issue with
On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if
you think that
On 27.8.2011, at 17.38, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
But back to a possible generic meaning of a
But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
Dave Ketchum wrote:
TRULY, this demonstrates lack of understanding of cause and effect.
IF the flask
On Aug 27, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
Dave Ketchum wrote:
TRULY, this demonstrates lack of
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
nD votes. If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
by creating a majority with your vote.
What do nR and nD stand for?
Or,
On Aug 27, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
nD votes. If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
by creating a majority
After Kevin's and Kristopher's comments, which I agree with, I am hesitant to
beat a dead horse, but I
have two more things for the record that should not be overlooked:
First, just as there are deterministic voting methods that elicit sincere
ordinal ballots under zero
information
On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:07 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Second, I want to get at the heart of the incommensurability complaint: in
most elections some voters
will have a much greater stake in the outcome than others. For some it may
be a life or death issue; if X
is elected your friend's
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if you
think that candidate X would
vote like you on a random issue with probability p percent, then you could
give candidate X a score that
is p percent of the way
On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if
you think that candidate X would
vote like you on a random issue with probability p percent, then you could
give
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Here's a link to Jobst's definitive posting on individual and social
utility:
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-February/019631.html
Also, I would like to make another comment in support of Warren's
thesis that cardinal range
Lundell:
Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot has a
pragmatic/operational meaning as a function of its use in determining a
winner.
But but it's an unwarranted leap from that claim to use the ballot scores as
a measure of utility. Arrows objection to
Michael Allan wrote:
But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
To which Warren Smith responded:
--no. A single ballot can change the outcome
A SAD weakness about what is being said.
On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Michael Allan wrote:
But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
Lundell:
Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot has
a pragmatic/operational meaning as a function of its use in determining a
winner.
But but it's an unwarranted leap from that claim to use the ballot
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
Lundell:
Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
has a pragmatic/operational meaning as a function of its use in
determining a winner.
But but it's an
On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
Lundell:
Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
has a pragmatic/operational meaning as a function of its
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com
On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
Lundell:
Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
has a
On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com
On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
Lundell:
Arrow would not, I think,
Here's a link to Jobst's definitive posting on individual and social utility:
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-February/019631.html
Also, I would like to make another comment in support of Warren's thesis that
cardinal range scores are
as meaningful or
Hi,
It seems to me all Warren is saying is that a more practical definition
of meaning would be a practical one. Arrow doesn't care about whether
the definition is practical, and as you'd then expect it doesn't happen
to be all that practical.
The Arrow/Tideman view doesn't even care what the
On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:16 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
:
Lundell:
Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
has a pragmatic/operational meaning as a function of its use in
determining a winner.
But but it's an unwarranted leap from that claim to use the
Michael Allan:
The effect however of a single ballot is exactly zero. It cannot
change the outcome of the election, or anything else in the objective
world.
--no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election.
This is true in any election method which is capable of having at
least two
On Aug 21, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
Kenneth Arrow has worried that range-voting-type score votes might have no
or
unclear-to-Arrow meaning. In contrast, he considers rank-ordering-style
votes to have a clear meaning.
Nic Tideman has also expressed similar worries in email, but
It seems to me that Arrow must want a unique generic meaning that people can
relate to independent of
the voting system. Perhaps he is right that ordinal information fits that
criterion slightly better than
cardinal information, but as Warren says, what really matters is the
operational
On Aug 23, 2011, at 4:07 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
It seems to me that Arrow must want a unique generic meaning that people can
relate to independent of
the voting system. Perhaps he is right that ordinal information fits that
criterion slightly better than
cardinal information, but
Warren Smith wrote:
Kenneth Arrow has worried that range-voting-type score votes might have no
or
unclear-to-Arrow meaning. In contrast, he considers rank-ordering-style
votes to have a clear meaning.
Nic Tideman has also expressed similar worries in email, but now about
the lack of
Kenneth Arrow has worried that range-voting-type score votes might have no or
unclear-to-Arrow meaning. In contrast, he considers rank-ordering-style
votes to have a clear meaning.
Nic Tideman has also expressed similar worries in email, but now about
the lack of meaning of an approval-style
48 matches
Mail list logo
