At 06:01 PM 6/25/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I suspect it may be a matter of social norms. I grew up listening to
theoretical physicists argue (my mother is one). They love a good
fight, and the kind of language Stephen used here is actually
consistent with a deep underlying respect in that
At 11:31 AM 6/26/2013, Chris Benham wrote:
Jameson,
I don't like this version at all. These methods all have the problem
that the voters have a strong incentive to just submit approval
ballots, i.e. only use the top and bottom grades.
Strong incentive requires strong preference.
The method
On 26.6.2013, at 22.48, David L Wetzell wrote:
This is in response to an earlier post by Juho where he speculates that IRV
is the preferred reform by politicians in the two major parties who want to
accommodate change that does the least harm to the status quo. I think it's
useful to
2013/6/26 Chris Benham cbenha...@yahoo.com.au
Jameson,
I don't like this version at all. These methods all have the problem that
the voters have a strong incentive to just submit approval ballots, i.e.
only use the top and bottom grades.
You are right... if they believe that all other voters
Vidar,
I'm a bit confused about the details of the method you say is used in Norway.
You write that voters may rank parties in a preferred order instead of only
being able to vote for a single party. but further down you refer to the one
person, one vote system.
Since you are not attempting
Jameson,
I don't see it...
Say on an ABCD grading ballot you give your Lesser Evil X a B, and then in the
second round both X and your Greater Evil Y reach the majority threshold. In
that case you obviously might have cause to regret that you didn't give X an A.
That is why your suggestion
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 08:31:23AM -0700, Chris Benham wrote:
I'm a bit confused about the details of the method you say is used in Norway.
You write that voters may rank parties in a preferred order instead of only
being able to vote for a single party. but further down you refer to the
Hi, first a quick note: I haven't been commenting because real life stuff,
work, etc has been keeping me busy, but I fully intend to go back and answer
any posts sent to me via the list(s). If just that my time and focus comes
in bursts and droughts. ;)
Second note, I continue to thank all
Vidar wrote:
If I'm not to use a quota, but rather something like Sainte-Laguë as it's done
today, how would I know when to start excluding the smaller parties?
When one (or more) of them doesn't have a seat according to the initial (trial)
apportionment.
*Use the best formula for
At 11:58 AM 6/27/2013, Benjamin Grant wrote:
Hi, first a quick note: I havent been
commenting because real life stuff, work, etc
has been keeping me busy, but I fully intend to
go back and answer any posts sent to me via the
list(s). If just that my time and focus comes in bursts and
sorry, I made some stupid arithmetic errors. Here I try again:
http://rangevoting.org/Comprehension.html
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
One word: recursion.
Recursion amps up the learning curve for most folks, particularly the
math-challenged.
Both my short-cut and the way FairVote is melding IRV with Top Two primary
so there's only 4 candidates in the last round solve this problem by ending
the use of recursion. It shd
2013/6/27 Chris Benham cbenha...@yahoo.com.au
Jameson,
I don't see it...
Say on an ABCD grading ballot you give your Lesser Evil X a B, and then in
the second round both X and your Greater Evil Y reach the majority
threshold. In that case you obviously might have cause to regret that you
13 matches
Mail list logo
