On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
I know what you mean. I tried to automate STV with two tin cans and a
string, and got nowhere at all. STV sucks.
Jonathan,
Don't know what you're trying to say. If you mean that a spreadsheet
won't work to
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be possible but you would have to have to have a few columns
for each round.
A lot more than a few. Try to do it with even 1/2 or 1/3 of all the
possible ballot ranking combinations and a few candidates in a
OK, to get references to how it is a problem of exponential difficulty
to count an STV election I am told to
Google Bartholdi STV and you'll come up with many citations.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
OK James. I stand corrected.
Although I think that Cincinnati OH defeated an STV plan for just such
a reason - that the STV plan reduced the number of votes that each
voter could cast for at-large seats.
I suppose district seats is a good alternative that tends to represent
minority groups who
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Chris Benham cbenha...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
STV tries to simulate that in a regular way that is hopefully deterministic
(as in most versions),
and guarantees all voters Later-no-Harm and of course doesn't have the same
possibilities of
bluff and gamesmanship
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, to get references to how it is a problem of exponential difficulty
to count an STV election I am told to
Google Bartholdi STV and you'll come up with many citations.
I think the point here is that it is very hard to
OK.
Either my source gave me the wrong sources or perhaps we
misunderstood each other to begin with.
All the same STV is incredibly complex to accurately count by hand or
by computer or spreadsheet as compared to other alternative voting
methods.
Kathy
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Raph
Kathy Dopp Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:44 PM
OK James. I stand corrected.
Although I think that Cincinnati OH defeated an STV plan for
just such a reason - that the STV plan reduced the number of
votes that each voter could cast for at-large seats.
I am not familiar with that
On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:26 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Jonathan Lundell
jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
I know what you mean. I tried to automate STV with two tin cans and a
string, and got nowhere at all. STV sucks.
Jonathan,
Don't know what you're trying to say.
Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
Party list systems are (mostly) monotonic.
Do not know what Party list systems are, but all plurality elections
are monotonic.
A party list system works like this. You have one vote. Vote for a
party. The
James,
You seem to have very much misunderstand every single statement I made
when I told you that we are in agreement on this.
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
I am not familiar with that particular case, but the usual reason why STV-PR
is
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
No. I believe that Cincinnati wants a fair equitable voting method
that is publicly transparent and were smart enough to realize what an
utter unfair mess the IRV/STV voting method is, and also recognized
that STV/IRV
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
But you are recommending that minority representation is dependent on
gerrymandering?
Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said not once, but
twice. Please reread what I said.
Thanks.
Kathy
--
Kathy Dopp
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Again you misconstrue my position. Like virtually all computer
scientists who do not profit from selling or certifying computerized
voting systems (and even some who do), I believe that there should be
methods that average
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
But you are recommending that minority representation is dependent on
gerrymandering?
Apparently you completely misunderstood what I said not once, but
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
Virtually all computer scientists?
Yes. Google on the topic or look at the ACM.org web site, the largest
association of computing professionals in the world and see their list
of tens of thousands of computer scientists who've
Will take a look. That seems pretty paranoid.
That is your opinion which is very different than the beliefs of the
founding fathers of the United States who tried to set up a system of
checks and balances whereby the public had to trust no one.
Blind trust is not a principle that is
Ralph other IRV/STV proponents,
I have already replied and clarified what I meant. Please go back and
reread cause I'm not going to keep retyping the same, and I cannot
prevent you from misconstruing my meaning if you insist.
To clarify one last time, I clearly said (first sentence in my
Kathy Dopp Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:33 PM
Obviously I did not express myself clearly enough for you.
When a minority group lives concentrated in particular
geographic districts then single-member districts give them
good representation.
In fact, the BEST method of ensuring fair
Dear folks,
I want to describe the most simple solution to the problem of how to
make sure option C is elected in the following situation:
a% having true utilities A(100) C(alpha) B(0),
b% having true utilities B(100) C(beta) A(0).
with a+b=100 and a*alpha + b*beta
On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:07 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
If the ballots were published, it would be pretty easy to convert them
into a result. Lots of programmers would probably do it for free.
Lots of programmers already do it for free, myself included.
Election-Methods mailing list - see
On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
To clarify one last time, I clearly said (first sentence in my email)
that I stand corrected that am not against FAIR, EQUITABLE,
MONOTONIC PR methods. I.e. a multiple at-large contest with one ranked
or rated ballot as long as that ballot is
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:56 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Again you misconstrue my position. Like virtually all computer
scientists who do not profit from selling or certifying computerized
voting systems (and even some who do), I believe that there should be
methods that average non-programming citizens
You're absolutely right, Juho -- I modified the condition a number of
times and didn't realize the last version did not imply both factions
prefer C to Random Ballot.
The correct set of situations for which SEC is a solution is
characterized by both factions prefering C to Random Ballot. The
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
In fact, the BEST method of ensuring fair representation for ALL minorities,
including those concentrated in particular localities,
is to elect all the members at large. If the voting support for any
particular
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Kathy Dopp kathy.d...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, well if you consider people who require transparent checks and
balances paranoid' then I will honestly tell you that I consider
people who blindly trust that all computer programmers are 100% honest
and infallible is
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
In fact, the BEST method of ensuring fair representation for ALL
minorities, including those concentrated in particular localities, is
to elect all the members at large. If the voting support for any
particular minority is large
--- On Sat, 31/1/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
re: People are not always good at reason based free
discussions.
How could they be? What, in our political systems,
encourages reason based discussions? The method
I've outlined cultivates such
--- On Sun, 1/2/09, Michael Allan m...@zelea.com wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
(I hope the role of public image
doesn't get so strong that people
would start thinking that their
whitened teeth and wide smile are
what they are, more than their
internal thoughts. :-)
Juho Laatu wrote:
I'm not sure that inequality would be a
requirement. Full equality in terms of
wealth and power is impossible to achieve,
but we can approximate that at some
agreed/suitable level (e.g. by balancing
the differences a bit where needed) - and
still keep the natural
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
Not 100% of programmers are trustworthy. However, there would be a flood of
people pointing out that there is a problem with the count ... (assuming they
release
the ballot data).
Yes. Let's hope there would be
31 matches
Mail list logo
