Here's the first draft of my letter to the NYT. I welcome comments (or
copycats). I'd be even happier if something like this could be signed by
several of us, and I'd happily cede considerable editorial control I'll
send it around midday Friday to give them time to include it before Sunday.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
To: EM list election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Cc:
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:29:02 +0200
Subject: Re: [EM] Utilitarianism and Perfectionism.
On 8.2.2012, at 16.18, David L Wetzell wrote:
...
dlw:At any rate,
On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
...
if it's not the majority that rule, what's the alternative?
I'm not aware of any good alternatives to majority rule in competitive
two-candidate elections (with some extra assumptions that rule out
On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 8.2.2012, at 16.18, David L Wetzell wrote:
...
At any rate, this is why I've argued that ascertaining the best
single-winner election rule is nowhere near as important as
pitching the importance of mixing the use of single-winner and
On 9.2.2012, at 17.21, David L Wetzell wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
To: EM list election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Cc:
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:29:02 +0200
Subject: Re: [EM] Utilitarianism and Perfectionism.
On 8.2.2012, at 16.18,
As I earlier wrote, I think the US has many options on how to go forward with
the reform. The presidential election is maybe the most interetsting one. If
one uses Condorcet, that means that the president may come from a minor party
or be independent. Let's say that there is an independent
Someone set up an online poll on CIVS regarding people's favorite voting
methods. The results are tabulated using Condorcet methods but the
ballots are available in case you want to analyze them with some other
method. It permits write-ins, too.
To vote or to see the results, go to:
Kristofer:
A few more comments to the same posting that I replied to yesterday.
Additional answers to the same statements:
I'd said:
What about Approval? It's simpler. Simpler to define, implement and
vote. And supplementable by the conditionality options that I've
described, to get rid
On 9.2.2012, at 18.07, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
...
if it's not the majority that rule, what's the alternative?
I'm not aware of any good alternatives to majority rule in competitive
On 2/9/12 5:19 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
Condorcet is a natural extension to the multi-candidate case (still
assuming competitive elections). Maybe not the only one though. In
another mail I just addressed the possbility of having single-winner
elections that aim at electing the winner from one of
Say my sincere ratings are:
x: 100
y: 90
(other candidates considerably lower)
Your sincere ratings are:
y: 100
x: 90
(other candidates considerably lower)
x and y are similar, but different enough to be supported by
different factions.
This situation is hardly unusual.
My
Juho LaatuSent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:29 PM
I think I agree when I say that the first decision (in the
USA) is whether to make the current two-party system work
better or whether to aim at a multi-party system.
Juho
Don't you think you might just be starting in the wrong
On 10.2.2012, at 0.59, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 2/9/12 5:19 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
Condorcet is a natural extension to the multi-candidate case (still assuming
competitive elections). Maybe not the only one though. In another mail I
just addressed the possbility of having
Juho LaatuSent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:07 PM
As I earlier wrote, I think the US has many options on how to
go forward with the reform. The presidential election is
maybe the most interesting one.
Juho
This may be the most interesting election, but as it is almost certainly the
On 10.2.2012, at 2.02, James Gilmour wrote:
Juho LaatuSent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:29 PM
I think I agree when I say that the first decision (in the
USA) is whether to make the current two-party system work
better or whether to aim at a multi-party system.
Juho
Don't you
On 10.2.2012, at 2.17, James Gilmour wrote:
Juho LaatuSent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:07 PM
As I earlier wrote, I think the US has many options on how to
go forward with the reform. The presidential election is
maybe the most interesting one.
Juho
This may be the most
Hi Robert,
De : robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Envoyé le : Jeudi 9 février 2012 10h07
Objet : Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet
On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Robert,
De : robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Envoyé le : Jeudi 9 février 2012 10h07
Objet : Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet
On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On
On 2/9/12 10:55 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
(Your idea of all the utilities being 0 or 1 can't even be made to
work as a model, I don't think, unless voters really only have two
stances toward candidates. Because what happens when you introduce a
19 matches
Mail list logo
