For those who feel that Bayesian Regret is the be-all-and-end-all measure
of voting system quality, that SODA's BR for 100% strategic voters will
beat all other systems, including Range/Approval.
For those who feel that Condorcet compliance is the be-all-and-end-all, a
majority Condorcet winner,
It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked choices
or party-list PR.
I don't. I think that party-list removes voter freedom, and ranked choices
is too much of a burden on the voter. While either would be better than
what we have, I prefer to use delegation a la SODA.
But why would you want all these differences and complications?
If you are going to use STV-PR for some of these elections, why not use STV-PR
for all of these elections to the various
representative assemblies (councils, state legislatures, US House of
Representatives, US Senate). STV-PR
For those who feel that strategic resistance is the most important, SODA
is unmatched. It ... has no burial incentive (ie, meets later-no-help),
Oops. I got carried away. No burial incentive is arguably true, but it
doesn't universally meet later-no-help, only up to 4 candidates.
Jameson
On 2/17/12 1:27 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
it can happen that the weakest link in the strongest path
from candidate A to candidate B and the weakest link in the
strongest path from candidate B to candidate A is the same link,
say CD.
how can that be? since a path is a *defeat* path. you only
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked choices
or party-list PR.
I don't. I think that party-list removes voter freedom, and ranked choices
is too much of a burden on the voter. While
IRV's got a first mover advantage over SODA and to catch up you need to
convince someone like Soros to help you market it. It wouldn't matter if
you got the whole EM list to agree with you that it was hunky-dory.
But in the context of a 2-party dominated system, there aren't as many
serious
On 2/17/2012 6:49 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
...
It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked
choices or party-list PR. ...
So what do you think?
I don't see this as an either/or choice, nor do I see a viable both
option being suggested.
So I'll again suggest VoteFair
If first-mover is all that counts, then I'm afraid we're stuck with
plurality. Obviously, I hope and believe that's not true.
Jameson
2012/2/17 David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
IRV's got a first mover advantage over SODA and to catch up you need to
convince someone like Soros to help you
It is because first-mover counts a lot that we've been stuck with FPTP in
the US for such a long time in contrast with countries with younger
democracies...
I never said it was all that counts, but it counts a good deal, as I
metaphorically allude to by emphing the diffs in Ps over the diffs in
From: Richard Fobes electionmeth...@votefair.org
To: election-meth...@electorama.com
Cc:
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:01:16 -0800
Subject: Re: [EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?
On 2/17/2012 6:49 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
...
It seems to me that most folks think the choice is
I give a rebuttal to the Electoral Reform Society's assessment of
party-list PR for the case of 3-seat LR Hare.
http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/05/electoral-reform-society-united-kingdom.html
dlw
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com wrote:
From:
Hi Robert,
Suppose there are four candidates ABCD. B beats A with strength of 10. C beats
D with strength
of 20. With strength of 30, A beats C, B beats C, D beats A, and D beats B.
Then every candidate
has a path to every other candidate, and the best path from A to B or from B to
A involves
Hi David,
De : David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Envoyé le : Vendredi 17 février 2012 13h37
Objet : Re: [EM] JQ wrt SODA
IRV's got a first mover advantage over SODA and to catch up you need to
convince someone like Soros to help you market it. It
I don't see why anyone would want to use a party-list voting system when there
are more voter-centred alternatives that fit much
better with the political cultures of countries like USA, Canada, UK. Why
anyone would want to use the Hare quota when, with
preferential voting, it can distort the
Hi Jameson,
Just a few thoughts.
De : Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
À : EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com; electionsciencefoundation
electionscie...@googlegroups.com
Envoyé le : Vendredi 17 février 2012 9h20
Objet : [EM] SODA arguments
For those who feel that Bayesian Regret
David L Wetzell Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:31 PM
James Gilmour: But why would you want all these differences
and complications?
dlw: Because context matters.
I have great difficulty in believing that there are such context specific
differences. I could believe that there are
2012/2/17 Kevin Venzke step...@yahoo.fr
Hi Jameson,
Just a few thoughts.
*De :* Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
*À :* EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com;
electionsciencefoundation electionscie...@googlegroups.com
*Envoyé le :* Vendredi 17 février 2012 9h20
*Objet :* [EM]
Hi Jameson,
De : Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
À : Kevin Venzke step...@yahoo.fr
Cc : election-methods election-meth...@electorama.com
Envoyé le : Vendredi 17 février 2012 19h53
Objet : Re: [EM] SODA arguments
For those who feel that Bayesian Regret is the be-all-and-end-all
So in the end, it's more a question of giving a last chance to realize
that someone isn't really the CW, rather than not electing someone who is
the CW.
Concerns me a little. I'm not sure candidates would do the thing their
supporters would want (or even that they themselves feel is
20 matches
Mail list logo
