Just to clarify this, for the nth permeantile, I think you'd weight each
point
on the n side (100-n)^2 and on the (100-n) side it would be n^2 .
From: Toby Pereira tdp2...@yahoo.co.uk
To: electorama list election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Sat, 9
I had a look at your system -
http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods@lists.electorama.com/msg07066.html -
I think I might have to look at it again to get it! But one thing about
percentiles. As I understand it, people often disagree about how to calculate
percentiles. The one I agree
Juho Laatu wrote:
After some recent discussions and thoughts around two-party systems I
thought it would be interesting to discuss two-party systems also in
a more positive spirit. The assumption is thus that we want the
system to be two-party oriented. We want to have two strong parties,
and
Juho Laatu Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 10:35 AM
After some recent discussions and thoughts around two-party
systems I thought it would be interesting to discuss
two-party systems also in a more positive spirit. The
assumption is thus that we want the system to be two-party
oriented.
On 9.7.2011, at 14.23, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
After some recent discussions and thoughts around two-party systems I
thought it would be interesting to discuss two-party systems also in
a more positive spirit. The assumption is thus that we want the
system to be
On 9.7.2011, at 16.14, James Gilmour wrote:
Juho Laatu Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 10:35 AM
After some recent discussions and thoughts around two-party
systems I thought it would be interesting to discuss
two-party systems also in a more positive spirit. The
assumption is thus that we
2011/7/8 Warren Smith warren@gmail.com
Sorry, as Jameson pointed out, he has invented a voting method he calls
AT-TV
which (he claims)
1. obeys a proportional representation theorem
Yes. It's instructive to see what PR criterion AT-TV satisfies, and what RRV
satisfies.
The standard
Juho
I regret to have to say that I find your approach confused and confusing, and
basically anti-democratic - which is a surprise and
a disappointment.
There is nothing at all wrong with a two party system if that is what the
voters really want. But it is something else altogether
to devise
Dear all,
The European Commission issued a public consultation on Corporate
governance:
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2011/corporate-governance-framework_en.htm
A public consultation means that the commission will consider the
answers to the questions by the public.
The
[Minor bug in Jameson;s claims: I think he meant =N not N.]
[Major ambiguity in Jameson's post: when you say given rating did
you mean this rating
is allowed to depend upon the party, or must it be party-independent?]
The RRV PR-theorem was if the voters all are totally racist that is vote
In AT-TV, suppose
30% of the voters vote Red=9, Blue=Green=0;
30% of the voters vote Blue=9, red=green=0;
40% of the voters vote Green=5, red=blue=4.
Will it then elect 30% reds, 30% blues, and 40% greens?
And do you consider that the right thing to do?
--(in this situation, by the way, I
I was wondering if you could run a Single Transferable Vote election without
worrying about having a Droop/Hare etc. quota.* I'm sort of thinking out loud
and I'm not sure what sort of results this might produce.
In the fist round, all candidates transfer away as many votes as they can get
From: Jameson Quinn
Here's the scenario you used to first show your tree method of
determiningdelegation order.
16 A1A2B
12 A2A1B
24 BA1=A2
48 C
What if some candidate outside the A1 A2 faction had an A2A1
preference? I
mean either:
Scenario S
16 A1A2B
12 A2A1B
24 BA2A1
48 C
Here's an idea.
First pick a party (with full knowledge who the candidates are in each party).
Then hold an open primary to pick the winning candidate from the winning
party.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On 9.7.2011, at 19.59, James Gilmour wrote:
Juho
I regret to have to say that I find your approach confused and confusing, and
basically anti-democratic - which is a surprise and
a disappointment.
I agree that democracy as defined by this challenge sets some strict limits to
how
On 7/9/11, Toby Pereira tdp2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Is this just the Instant Run-off version of STV that you're talking about
that
pays no attention to who you ranked below top?
--all forms. They all go thru your ballot in descendign order and pay
no attention to the part they haven't reached
On 9.7.2011, at 22.23, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Here's an idea.
First pick a party (with full knowledge who the candidates are in each party).
Then hold an open primary to pick the winning candidate from the winning
party.
This sounds like a two-phase single winner election. The first
Toby Pereira tdp201b at yahoo.co.uk:
In the first round, all candidates transfer away as many votes as they
can get away with so that they don't end up in last place. So if there
are n candidates, then having more than 1/(n+1) votes will guarantee
not finishing in last place. Because not every
I did wonder that myself and considered mentioning in the post for some reason
didn't. I'm not 100% sure. If it does make a difference you could easily add in
some sort of rule to determine how to do it, although the more rules the uglier.
You could do it in stages. At the first stage everyone
19 matches
Mail list logo
