Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 17, 2009, at 7:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Ketchum
mail.clarityconnect.com wrote:
There has been a lot of guessing - let's see if I can do better, though
wishing to move to Condorcet:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
In
effect, one decouples the calculation (determining the winners) from the
counting (determining what people actually voted), and one can thus alter
one without necessarily having to alter the other.
Adb's
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 12:56 PM
Adb's ballot imaging idea takes this to the extreme. With
pattern recognition software, you could support virtually any
voting method.
The counting process would just produce a list of numbers
corresponding to each ballot.
In its
2009/3/18 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk:
I'm afraid there is a little more involved that your description would
suggest because real voters do things you might never expect.
But it has all already been done for public elections. Just one example of
which I have some knowledge. In
Indeed, pixel scanning voting technology that captures complete ballot
images that can be interpreted using standard form-reading software allows
for ANY improved voting method AND increases election integrity by having
a redundant paper and machine record of every vote (making fraud extremely
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Well, as the software improves, this would be less of a
problem.
I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it clearly). It
is not a software issue - it is a compliance issue.
No matter what software you use to read the
2009/3/18 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk:
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Well, as the software improves, this would be less of a
problem.
I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it clearly). It
is not a software issue - it is a compliance
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:54 PM
2009/3/18 James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk:
I'm afraid you have misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain it
clearly). It is not a software issue - it is a compliance issue. No
matter what software you use to read the images,
The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review
The Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order yesterday,
March 17, 2009, for the accelerated briefing and review of the
Minnesota Voters Alliance appeal from the District Court’s decision
finding the City of Minneapolis’
Good Morning, Juho
I've been on the fence about whether or not it is appropriate for me to
respond to your last message on this thread. Since I'm aware you ...
value many of the political systems of today higher than ... I do, and
since we've exchanged many thoughts over the past year, I
Fred,
I suspect part of the differences are that you place such an overwhelming
focus on political parties as the center of control and corruption, while
others may view parties as virtually appendages of more significant power
centers (whether that be corporate wealth, unions, intellectual
I uploaded the example ballot .pdf file that the code uses to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/files/Ballot%20image/temp_ballot.pdf
Also, some intermediate files from processing the image0001.pnp file.
This is after determining the alignment points:
--- On Wed, 18/3/09, Fred Gohlke fredgoh...@verizon.net wrote:
Good Morning, Juho
I've been on the fence about whether or not it is
appropriate for me to respond to your last message on this
thread. Since I'm aware you ... value many of the
political systems of today higher than ... I
I cannot believe there is still people believing that with an IRV system
a voter who votes for his first
choice could harm the candidate’s chance of winning...
By the way Kathy, so how do you cool your house?
Kathy Dopp a écrit :
The Minnesota Voters Alliance Welcomes Supreme Court Review
You keep presenting this flaw in an incomplete way:
with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of
no voting) could harm the candidate’s chance of winning...
This statement is false.
with an IRV system a voter who votes for his first choice (instead of
another of its
Yes I do, and the no show paradox shows that
by staying home a voter can hope to get some more favourable outcome,
but not any kind of.
Again if by doing so, there is a most favourable outcome, that most
favourable outcome cannot be a first choice.
Staying home can help a second choice beat
16 matches
Mail list logo
