Yes, there are areas where single-winner methods are more challenging. For
example multi-winner STV works better than single-winner STV, and it is easier
to collect sincere ratings in multi-winner methods than in single-winner
methods. On the other hand the field of study may be wider in
There is only one real issue in elections: representation of the voters.
If in a single winner partisan election the voters vote 51% for A and 49% for
B, we have a major problem in representation.
But if the voters vote in the same way (51% to 49%) in a two-member election,
any sensible voting
Here's the new text on the SODA
pagehttp://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Simple_Optionally-Delegated_Approval#Criteria_Compliancerelating
to the Condorcet criterion:
It fails the Condorcet
criterionhttp://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Condorcet_criterion,
although the majority Condorcet winner over the
I suspect that SODA would be Condorcet compliant (over ballots) if the first
player was, not the DSC winner, but the DAC winner (re-ordering between each
delegated assignment).
I'll see if I can work up a proof on this.
JQ
2011/7/30 fsimm...@pcc.edu
One of the features of SODA is a step where
Of course DSC and DAC are the same when rankings are complete. I was only
going to use it to determine the first player, and with amalgamated factions
(almost surely) the rankings would be complete.
Of course there are many variations of this DSV idea [e.g. we could use
chiastic approval to
2011/8/4 fsimm...@pcc.edu
Of course DSC and DAC are the same when rankings are complete. I was only
going to use it to determine the first player, and with amalgamated factions
(almost surely) the rankings would be complete.
Yes, understood. I on the other hand was speaking of using this
- Original Message -
From: Jameson Quinn
Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: Amalgamation details, hijacking, and free-riding
To: fsimm...@pcc.edu
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
2011/8/3
So if the true preferences are
20 AB
45 C?
35 (something
2011/8/4 fsimm...@pcc.edu
- Original Message -
From: Jameson Quinn
Date: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: Amalgamation details, hijacking, and free-riding
To: fsimm...@pcc.edu
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
2011/8/3
So if the true preferences are
--
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: electorama.com/attachments/20110804/d8f85fc2/attachment-0001.htm
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
2011/8/4 fsimm...@pcc.edu
I want to thank Jameson for taking the ball and running with it on SODA. I
really appreciate his talented
and energetic work on elaborating, explaining, and selling the method.
Thank you.
More stuff I've added to the SODA page recently:
-I tried to unify the
Here I talk of moving up from FPP to Range or Condorcet. I do not get
into other single-winner elections or into multi-winner elections -
while such deserve considering, they distract from my primary goal,
which is to promote moving upward without getting buried in details.
Voters should
On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:20 AM, bob wrote:
--- In rangevot...@yahoogroups.com, thenewthirdparty
thenewthirdparty@... wrote:
Guys and Gals,
I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting
third parties elected. But I don't see how the Range Voting group
will ever change the
12 matches
Mail list logo
