Dave Ketchum wrote (18 Jan 2010):
In response I will pick on LNH for not being a serious reason for
rejecting Condorcet - that such failure can occur with reasonable
voting choices for which the voter knows what is happening. Quoting
from Wikipedia:
For example in an election conducted
On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Chris Benham wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote (18 Jan 2010):
In response I will pick on LNH for not being a serious reason for
rejecting Condorcet - that such failure can occur with reasonable
voting choices for which the voter knows what is happening. Quoting
from
In response I will pick on LNH for not being a serious reason for
rejecting Condorcet - that such failure can occur with reasonable
voting choices for which the voter knows what is happening. Quoting
from Wikipedia:
For example in an election conducted using theCondorcet compliant
Abd Lomax wrote (17 Jan 2010):
snip
Chris is Australian, and is one of a rare breed: someone who actually
understands STV and supports it for single-winner because of LNH
satisfaction. Of course, LNH is a criterion disliked by many voting
system experts, and it's based on a political concept
At 09:29 AM 1/15/2010, Chris Benham wrote:
snip With repeated balloting there are no eliminations? As I
undersatnd it, in Top Two Runoff all but the top two first-round
vote getters are eliminated if no candidate gets more than half the
votes in the first round.
Yes. The standard voting
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote (14 Jan 2010):
snip
Why does Kathy elsewhere defend Top Two Runoff which isn't monotonic?
This opinion, stated as fact, is false. Top Two Runoff is a two-step
system, and monotonicity doesn't refer to such. It refers to the
effect of a vote on a single ballot as to
Kathy Dopp wrote (11 Jan 2010):
snip
IRV/STV is fundamentally unfair because a large group of persons whose
first choice loses, never has their 2nd choice counted, unlike some
other voters. It's a highly inequitable method.
snip
Kathy Dopp wrote (13 Jan 2010):
For those who need a system for
At 08:06 PM 1/13/2010, Kathy Dopp wrote:
For those who need a system for substituting for a top-two runoff
election, I devised two fair methods to suggest to her that do not
have all the flaws of IRV/STV. (They both may've been devised by
others before me. My goal was to create a fair method
At 09:32 PM 1/13/2010, Kathy Dopp wrote:
This sounds like a variation on Borda count, but with an
incentive to vote on fewer candidates.
Yes perhaps, but normalized to give a value of one in total to all
ballots since Borda was rejected by the MN Supreme court as violating
At 12:51 PM 1/14/2010, Chris Benham wrote:
I'm not sure what Kathy means by a majority favorite.
Yeah, she's not necessarily precise, being a voting security expert,
not a voting systems expert.
That phrase is
usually taken to refer to a candidate that is strictly top-ranked by more
than
For those who need a system for substituting for a top-two runoff
election, I devised two fair methods to suggest to her that do not
have all the flaws of IRV/STV. (They both may've been devised by
others before me. My goal was to create a fair method without
IRV/STV's flaws which solve the
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
1. A rank choice ballot method:
Any number of candidates may be running for office and any number
allowed to be ranked on the ballot.
Voter ranks one candidate vote =1
Voter ranks two candidates, denominator is 1+2 = 3
votes are worth 2/3
: [EM] Two simple alternative voting methods that are
fairer than IRV/STV and lack most IRV/STV flaws
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
1. A rank choice ballot method:
Any number of candidates may be running for office and any number
allowed to be ranked on the ballot
13 matches
Mail list logo
