On 02/19/2012 06:04 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
David Wetzell, your reply reveals that we view the U.S. political system
very differently.
Here is a link to a map of the U.S. political system as I see it:
http://www.votefair.org/pencil_metaphor.html
If the Republican party and the Democratic
On 02/19/2012 06:18 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
I have in mind European parliaments where coalitions are typically needed.
In my opinion, coalitions require back-room compromises that most voters
would not like (if they knew what those compromises were).
I have not seen any parliamentary
On 02/15/2012 06:08 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
But conditionality-by-mutuality violates later-no-help, and as such,
raises the spectre of a DH3 http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/DH3-like
scenario.
I think you can have burial in methods that pass LNHelp too, unless the
method also passes LNHarm.
2012/2/19 Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com
On 02/15/2012 06:08 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
But conditionality-by-mutuality violates later-no-help, and as such,
raises the spectre of a DH3
http://wiki.electorama.com/**wiki/DH3http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/DH3
-like
scenario.
I
David L Wetzell Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:21 PM
If voters can help elect a 3rd party more easily then it
doesn't matter if there's a stronger role for party hierarchy
in the determination of their party's candidate.
This is far from the reality - it matters a great deal.
From: Richard Fobes electionmeth...@votefair.org
To: election-meth...@electorama.com
Cc:
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:04:42 -0800
Subject: Re: [EM] (Kevin Venzke) and Richard Fobes.
David Wetzell, your reply reveals that we view the U.S. political system
very differently.
Here is a link to
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM,
election-methods-requ...@lists.electorama.com wrote:
Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
Does anyone understand why the DH3 concept exists? Why envision three major
blocs, instead of two major blocs plus the small bloc belonging
to the pawn candidate? That doesn't require four candidates and more closely
resembles how burial problems are usually considered...
Kevin
On 02/19/2012 09:37 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Does anyone understand why the DH3 concept exists? Why envision three
major blocs, instead of two major blocs plus the small bloc belonging
to the pawn candidate? That doesn't require four candidates and more
closely resembles how burial problems are
Hi David,
De : David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Envoyé le : Samedi 18 février 2012 16h58
Objet : Re: [EM] (Kevin Venzke) and Richard Fobes.
That doesn't make much sense to me. The election method is a part of the
Hi,
De : Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com
À : Kevin Venzke step...@yahoo.fr
Cc : election-methods election-meth...@electorama.com
Envoyé le : Dimanche 19 février 2012 15h28
Objet : Re: [EM] Conditionality-by-top-count probably violates FBC
On
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Venzke step...@yahoo.fr
To: election-methods election-meth...@electorama.com
Cc:
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:56:08 + (GMT)
Subject: Re: [EM] (Kevin Venzke) and Richard Fobes.
Hi David,
--
*De :* David L Wetzell
..., cuz the simple fact of the matter is that IRV works best with only 3
candidates.
2.5, actually.
Jameson
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
It seems quite a few election rules get quirky in one way or the other with
a 3-way competitive election.
That might be a point worth considering in the abstract in a paper or
something why are 3-way single-winner elections quirky?
dlw
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Jameson Quinn
On 2/19/12 8:53 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
It seems quite a few election rules get quirky in one way or the other
with a 3-way competitive election.
That might be a point worth considering in the abstract in a paper or
something why are 3-way single-winner elections quirky?
isn't it
They are quirky because of IIA. The papers on this are from the 1970's. Quote
Wikipedia:
The Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, named after Allan Gibbard and Mark
Satterthwaite, is a
result about the deterministic voting systems that choose a single winner using
only the preferences
of the
On 2/19/2012 1:04 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 02/19/2012 06:04 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
...
Here is a link to a map of the U.S. political system as I see it:
http://www.votefair.org/pencil_metaphor.html
If the Republican party and the Democratic party are at opposite ends
of a
(I've figured out how to quote since my last comment on that. I have no idea
why quoting a message is merely an option...)
- Mail original - (Richard wrote)
Unfortunately none of the third parties in the U.S. are understanding this
opportunity. The leaders at the top of those third
18 matches
Mail list logo
