okay, Abd ul, i once got suckered into responding to a big long thing
you made in response to me. you probably seen it, but the list
hasn't because it exceeded some size limit. so i'm gonna snip at the
first place to respond and i'll ask that the next issue area get its
separate email
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 16, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Exactly as I tried to point out to you, you were either disallowing
voters to rank only two candidates or to rank all
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
we can continue on like this with more discrete levels and all we'll get
are gradations of the above. it's all a matter of degree.
but the 2-position slider is a 1-bit piece of information: No,Yes,
that's the minimum a voter has to judge. that's qualitatively
Hi Chris,
I respond to your claims below.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Chris Benham cbenha...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
- Forwarded Message
From: Chris Benham cbenha...@yahoo.com.au
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Fri, 15 January, 2010 4:21:31 AM
Subject: Two
For the record, I like approval voting and think it would be among the
best, if not the best, first step as an alternative voting method to
plurality. However, I also think Condorcet is OK as long as voters
are not required to rank all choices, to alleviate the point Abd ul
mentions below
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote (17 Jan 2010):
To me, it seems that the method becomes Approval-like when (number of
graduations) is less than (number of candidates). When that is the case,
you *have* to rate some candidates equal, unless you opt not to rate
them at all.
That won't make much of
At 03:01 AM 1/17/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Jan 17, 2010, at 12:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
There is a common error here, which is to assume that Range
requires too much information from the voter.
well, it does force the voter to consider the questions oh, i hate
this guy
At 08:38 AM 1/17/2010, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Also of course if the A supporters had not ranked B then A would
have won, a big violation of Later-no-Harm.
Later-no-harm is a very bad feature of IRV that prevents IRV from
finding majority-favorite compromise candidates and tends to elect
extreme
Cutting to the chase, the fundamental error has been to assume that
write-in or so-called inconsequential candidates can be batch-
eliminated before having results from the whole election. No precinct
knows what can be eliminated until it has the results from other
precincts for the first
Kathy,
you wrotesnip
...unlike with IRV where a majority may think that the
elected candidate is the worst choice, as happened in Burlington, VT
mayoral election.
snip
That is incorrect for Burlington, (the IRV winner was the second
Condorcet-winner if the actual Condorcet-winner is removed, and
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Terry Bouricius
ter...@burlingtontelecom.net wrote:
Kathy,
you wrotesnip
...unlike with IRV where a majority may think that the
elected candidate is the worst choice, as happened in Burlington, VT
mayoral election.
To clarify, what I meant to say is that in
Kathy,
You still have it wrong. You wrote To clarify, what I meant to say is
that in Burlington, the IRV winner
was the worst choice of a majority of voters *out of the three candidates
who were viable*.
No, among the top three the IRV winner, Kiss, was not less preferred than
Wright. Both
Abd Lomax wrote (17 Jan 2010):
snip
Chris is Australian, and is one of a rare breed: someone who actually
understands STV and supports it for single-winner because of LNH
satisfaction. Of course, LNH is a criterion disliked by many voting
system experts, and it's based on a political concept
Kathy,
You still are miss-stating the Burlington situation. Nearly every
political scientist would say that Wright and Kiss were the two strongest
candidates. Most political observers would agree that the term the two
strongest candidates does not include the third place plurality
candidate,
On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Nearly every political scientist would say that
Wright and Kiss were the two strongest candidates.
before or after the election?
before the election, i'm not sure that was true. they might have
said that Kiss and Montroll were the two
15 matches
Mail list logo
