Thanks very much for replying, Fred. Metagovernment is a good list
for these kind of discussions, as good as any I know. You'd
definitely be welcome there. I'll look up the reference you mention,
and respond more fully soon. In the meantime, I wish to share an
updated abstract, plus a first
Michael Allan Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:31 AM
ABSTRACT
An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the
election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the
same regardless.
These statements worry me - surely they contain a logical flaw? If these
On 3.10.2011, at 11.56, James Gilmour wrote:
Michael Allan Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:31 AM
ABSTRACT
An individual vote has no effect on the formal outcome of the
election; whether the vote is cast or not, the outcome is the
same regardless.
These statements worry me
On 03 Oct 2011 12:23:10 -0700, Toby Pereira wrote:
I noticed on your page that you suspect that all multi-winner
methods fail participation. I don't think that's the case. I would
suggest that Forest Simmons's Proportional Approval Voting passes
it. Also I think my versions of Proportional
I know that Approval is technically better than a lot of things, and I think
it's better than IRV, but I want to argue that it's not good enough and we
shouldn't aim low or advocate it too strongly.
I've always been personally unsatisfied with the prospect of filling out an
Approval ballot.
A range voting generalization is the following:
The score that the ith ballot assigns to the ath candidate is s_i,a. v_i,a is
the vote assigned to candidate a from the ith ballot. The optimal v_i,a is
determined iteratively.
For each candidate set
1) choose an initial v_i,a. such that sum_a
On 10/3/11 4:54 PM, Brian Olson wrote:
I know that Approval is technically better than a lot of things, and I think
it's better than IRV, but I want to argue that it's not good enough and we
shouldn't aim low or advocate it too strongly.
I've always been personally unsatisfied with the
