Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
Thank you very much for the link to the Mother Jones article describing
efforts to curtail the utter domination corporations exert over our
existence. Perhaps, in time, reason will triumph.
[snip]
Again, I don't have much to comment on, but I
At 03:31 PM 1/6/2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:19:29 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:28 PM 1/4/2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:16:14 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. That can be a *lot* of preparation, and
people are busy,
I wonder if it has been noticed that elections are generally
lotteries. Each voter has one vote they own and pay.
The risk is that the vote is useless. The payoff is that the vote is
effective. Most votes are useless, most of the time. However, in most
systems, there are conditions where many
At 05:46 PM 1/5/2009, Juho Laatu wrote:
It is possible that the voters would have
liked to take position but for some reason
did not know which candidates would be the
strongest in this election. This situation
is the same for all methods. A second round
could improve things. But it may be that
At 06:14 PM 1/5/2009, James Gilmour wrote:
At 07:04 PM 1/2/2009, James Gilmour wrote:
So let's try again, with little bit of additional information that
was (more or less) implied first time.
At a meeting we need to elect one office-bearer (single-office,
single-winner). There are four
At 07:04 PM 1/5/2009, James Gilmour wrote:
It is quite clear (and now agreed) that the winner (A) of the
Exhaustive Ballot example had a majority of the votes at the second
round and so was the rightful winner of that Exhaustive Ballot. But
it would quite wrong to say that candidate A had the
At 07:04 PM 1/5/2009, James Gilmour wrote:
It is quite clear (and now agreed) that the winner (A) of the
Exhaustive Ballot example had a majority of the votes at the second
round and so was the rightful winner of that Exhaustive Ballot. But
it would quite wrong to say that candidate A had
At 07:44 PM 1/5/2009, Kathy Dopp wrote:
IRV/STV cannot claim majority winners, not only because ballots are
exhausted and not considered in the final counting round, but also
because not all voters' choices are even fairly and equally considered
during the counting process - thus resulting in
I should say at the outset that I will email a spreadsheet with the
vote data, on request. It's on the web site I pointed to, but it's a
pile of individual files and a little nuisance to download and
convert and combine.
At 08:56 AM 1/5/2009, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
To my knowledge,
I completed a theory outline, and here I'm posting it for the record.
Critique is also welcome. Please point out flaws or ommissions.
The voting mechanism (delegate cascade) is essentially identical to
Abd's delegable proxy. I describe the nuts and bolts of it. I also
describe its interface to
10 matches
Mail list logo
