Dave Ketchum wrote:
Of course, you have to read the voter's mind to know if the change might
have been seen as desirable.
I was into tactics.
So was I. Consider the monotonicity (mono-raise) criterion, which is
defined as: raising a candidate x on some ballots on which x is listed
should
Can it be said that Later No Harm (LNH) is satisfied by the variation of
IRV that allows candidates to withdraw from contention after the votes are
cast?
Similar to truly condorcetian methods, Withdrawal//IRV would presumably
tend to elect candidates who take median positions on the issues. That
http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/2009/11/minneapolis-instant-runoff-voting.html
November 26, 2009
Minneapolis instant runoff voting - lowest turnout since 1902
Minneapolis had its first instant runoff voting election on Nov 3, and
had the lowest voter turnout since 1902, well over a hundred
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 8:52 PM, sepp...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
Similar to truly condorcetian methods, Withdrawal//IRV would presumably
tend to elect candidates who take median positions on the issues. That
would create an incentive for candidates who want to win to take median
positions.
sepp...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
Can it be said that Later No Harm (LNH) is satisfied by the variation of
IRV that allows candidates to withdraw from contention after the votes are
cast?
I'm not sure. In the wider picture, the candidates would use the ballot
data in order to determine
On Nov 26, 2009, at 12:52 PM, sepp...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
Can it be said that Later No Harm (LNH) is satisfied by the variation of
IRV that allows candidates to withdraw from contention after the votes are
cast?
Assuming that the candidates know what the ballots did, then no, it cannot,
sepp...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote:
By the way, if my understanding is correct, IRV is not Single
Transferable Vote (STV), the single-winner voting method used in
Australia Ireland. IRV severely limits the number of candidates each
voter can rank (to 3, if my understanding is correct)
On Nov 26, 2009, at 10:59 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
...
One thought I had was a base from which to think of more-or-less
controllable changes: Start with equal size parties and all
members doing bullet voting - result is a tie with all candidates
getting
