Jonathan Lundell Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:02 AM
I'm not making a particularly important point here, only that if a
voter can pick a favorite (as required for plurality), then a voter
can build an ordered list.
I know it is straying from single-office single-winner elections in
On Jan 25, 2009, at 12:40 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
What I mean is that it may quite OK
to assume that people are able to
find some preference order when
voting. And therefore we can force
them to do so.
How can any such coercion be compatible with participation in a democracy? It
is
At 07:04 PM 1/5/2009, James Gilmour wrote:
It is quite clear (and now agreed) that the winner (A) of the
Exhaustive Ballot example had a majority of the votes at the second
round and so was the rightful winner of that Exhaustive Ballot. But
it would quite wrong to say that candidate A had
At 07:04 PM 1/2/2009, James Gilmour wrote:
So let's try again, with little bit of additional information that
was (more or less) implied first time.
At a meeting we need to elect one office-bearer (single-office,
single-winner). There are four candidates and we decide to use
Juho Laatu Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:46 PM
One comment on concerns related to IRV's
decision between the last two candidates
on if that decision is a majority decision.
Many ballots may have exhausted before the
last round. As a result one may claim that
the last round decision
James Gilmour wrote (2 Jan 2009):
So let's try a small number of numbers.
At a meeting we need to elect one office-bearer (single-office,
single-winner). There are four candidates and we decide to use the
exhaustive ballot (bottom elimination, one at a time) with
the requirement
Who would have thought such a simple example and such a direct question could
provoke so much obfuscation and prevarication.
References to IRV, FairVote and Santa Clara are all completely irrelevant.
So let's try again, with little bit of additional information that was (more or
less) implied
are too
formal to cover all needs, and UK thoughts might help us with doing
something to fill the gap.
In Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:38:50 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave, I'm surprised you should think any UK experience could help with
this one (as you've suggested in a couple of posts), because
James Gilmour had written:
This not about MY view. The background to this recent discussion was
about the political acceptability of a weak Condorcet winner
to ordinary electors. I said I thought a strong
third-place Condorcet winner would be
politically acceptable. But I had
Abd ul-Rahman LomaxSent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:32 PM
Yes. You are English.
At 09:55 AM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
NO, I am not English. I was born in the UK and I am a subject of
Her Majesty The Queen (there are no citizens in the UK), but I am
not English.
Abd ul
An exchnage that escaped the list - acccidentally.
--- On Thu, 12/25/08, James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
I do not think you have to be anywhere near the zero
first-preferences Condorcet winner scenario to be in the sphere of
politically unacceptable. I am quite
Dave Ketchum Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 3:15 AM
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:25:09 - James Gilmour wrote:
Yes, all the marked preferences will allow the voter's one vote to be
used in as many pair-wise comparisons as the voter wishes to
participate in.
Voter wishes do not matter
Aaron ArmitageSent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 7:40 PM
To: jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk; election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2
I do not think you have to be anywhere near the zero
first-preferences Condorcet winner
Abd ul-Rahman LomaxSent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:01 PM
At 09:05 AM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
My personal view is that runoff is not desirable and would be an
unnecessary and unwanted expense. I know runoff voting systems are
used in some other countries, but they are not used
Abd ul-Rahman LomaxSent: Thursday, December 25, 2008 8:32 PM
At 09:55 AM 12/25/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Abd, you are a great wriggler.
Thanks. I'm not a butterfly to be pinned to your specimen board.
Abd, I don't want to pin you or anyone else to a specimen board. I just don't
think
Juho Laatu Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:43 AM
Using single-winner methods to implement
multi-winner elections is a weird
starting point in the first place.
All my comments were exclusively in the context of single-office single-winner
elections.
As I have said many times
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:54 AM
Perhaps real world implementation of Condorcet
systems would have a first preference threshold, either on candidates
or on sets: anyone getting less than x% FP is disqualified.
I have not seen any advocate of Condorcet make
I wrote:
As I have said many times before, it is my firmly held view that
single-winner voting systems should NEVER be used for the general
election of the members of any assembly (city council,
state legislature, state or federal parliament, House of Representatives or
Senate). All
Dave Ketchum Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 6:11 AM
Does real likely fit the facts? Some thought:
Assuming 5 serious contenders they will average 3rd rank with CW doing
better (for 3, 2nd). Point is that while some voters may rank the CW low,
to be CW it has to average toward
Markus Schulze Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 9:24 PM
James Gilmour wrote (24 Dec 2008):
IRV has been used for public elections for many decades
in several countries. In contrast, despite having been around for
about 220 years, the Condorcet voting system has not been used in any
Dave KetchumSent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:23 AM
Disturbing that you would consider clear wins by a majority to be
objectionable.
Dave, I never said that I would find that result objectionable. What I did say
was that I thought such a result would be
POLITICALLY unacceptable to the
Dave Ketchum Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:54 PM
Ok, I did not say it clearly.
Obvious need is to package arguments such that they are salable.
Take the one about a Condorcet winner with no first preferences. Ugly
thought, but how do you get there? Perhaps with three incompatible
Dave Ketchum Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:51 AM
Responding to one thought for IRV vs C (Condorcet):
My comments were not specific to IRV versus Condorcet.
JG had written
When there is no majority winner they may well be prepared to take a
compromising view, but there are some very
Abd ul-Rahman LomaxSent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 1:44 AM
LNH as an absolute principle, which, as an election criterion, it is,
is harmful.
That is a value judgement - which of course you are perfectly entitled to
make.
It prevents the system acting as a negotiator seeking
had
greater overall compromise support, i.e. they would
expect LNH to apply and operate. When there is no majority winner they may
well be prepared to take a compromising view, but there
are some very real difficulties in putting that into effect for public
elections.
James Gilmour
No virus
is
irrelevant.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1857 - Release Date: 19/12/2008
10:09
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:52 PM
The tragedy is that IRV is replacing Top Two Runoff, an older reform
that actually works better than IRV.
James Gilmour wrote:
I have seen statements like this quite a few times, and they puzzle
me. I can see
the outcome
from TTRO is very bad and I should have thought that
an IRV election would have given a much more representative result. Condorcet
might be better still, but that's a different debate.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:41 PM
If IRV does elect the true Condorcet winner in all realistic elections
(as opposed to the CW according to strategic ballots), and the
Australian two-party (two and a third?) dominance arises from IRV, then
that means that any
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:27 PM
It suggests more than this. If all Condorcet single-round single-winner
methods strengthen the duopoly, then the important single-winner
elections should either be made multiple-round (that is, have runoffs),
or be
James Gilmour wrote:
I had always assumed this list was focused so strongly
on single-winner voting systems because there are
so many important single-office (hence single-winner)
elections in the USA.
Bob Richard Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:19 PM
That's an important part
of nominating
candidates), and is what real voters do in real TTRO elections (in terms of
scattering their votes around), and the results are
disastrous - and not just for the French in this case - we all had to live
with the political consequences of this election.
James Gilmour
No virus found
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 23:28:01 - James Gilmour wrote:
There is only one legitimate interpretation of the AB ballot paper
in a Condorcet count with regard to the C vs. D pair-wise contest
- the voter has given the Returning Officer no information. No-one
is entitled make any
From: James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I have understood the various submissions correctly, the principal
objection to IRV on THIS ground, is that the ballot papers of voters
who express different numbers of preferences are thereby treated
differently, and in such a way
in IRV, would it
not also be a fatal flaw in Condorcet counting, and indeed in any other
voting system where voters may express different numbers
of preferences?
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.0
not. This is a very
important question because if IRV is held to be unconstitutional on THIS
ground, then a whole raft of other voting systems,
including Condorcet counting, would also have to be considered
unconstitutional.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:20 AM, James Gilmour
If I have understood the various submissions correctly, the principal
objection to IRV on THIS ground, is that the ballot papers of voters
who express different numbers of preferences are thereby treated
differently, and in such a way
Raph Frank Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 12:44 PM
Ballot access is pretty open in the UK, and you don't see
lots of former party members running.
Yes, ballot access is pretty open in the UK for any individual, party or group.
However, you should be aware that, since the 1998
legal
Steve Eppley Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 3:17 PM
Converting is a good idea. Several years ago, I looked for a way to
convert to pdf for free, but without success. Can someone recommend a
conversion technique? Freeware ideally, but perhaps some simple series
of global replacements
Jonathan Lundell Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:18 PM
Consider a voter who declines to list even a first choice: her vote
value is 0, and yet we don't consider that to be unequal treatment
in a plurality election.
Jonathan, we can much further than that. Never mind the elector who
Dave Ketchum Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 1:16 AM
We have to be doing different topics.
Yes, we must indeed be doing different topics.
If you are electing the City Mayor or the State Governor and there are only two
candidates, plurality is as good as it gets. If
there are more than two
Raph Frank Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 11:01 PM
These disks have to be kept securely for four years -
no access to anyone except with a Court Order.
What is the basis for granting access?
We do not have any precedents for access to the images of ballot papers because
there were no
Just for the record -
Raph Frank Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:27 PM
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:00 PM, James Gilmour
Here in Scotland there is a somewhat hidden debate that must be had.
STV-PR was introduced for local government elections in 2007. The
counting rules adopted
Stéphane Rouillon Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:27 PM
Can't the municipal level respond to the preocupations of these
geographically defined communities and the
national/provincial/federal
level answer to other considerations?
This reflects a delightfully detached view of politics
Method
(weighted fractional transfer values, all papers transferred) for their STV-PR
elections. New Zealand uses Meek STV (weighted
fractional transfer values, all papers transferred, votes transferred to
already elected candidates) for its STV-PR elections.
James Gilmour
No virus found
IRV, i.e. the
repeated application of IRV sensu stricto to a
multi-seat election, I would not be at all surprised if that voting system were
also non-monotonic. However, multiple IRV has far
more serious defects than any failure of monotonicity and has nothing to
recommend it.
James Gilmour
to identify the
last winner. Unfortunately, this stupid rule was
implemented in the Scottish version of WIGM STV-PR when electronic counts were
used, but could be dropped in manual counts.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:49 AM
Depends what you mean by normal. There are at least six different
sets of rules for STV-PR now in use for public elections around the
world.
Fair enough. So they are just giving an official name to one
of them then?
I would
Jonathan Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 12:11 AM
There's a proposition on the November ballot in California that would
establish an independent commission to draw (single-member) state
legislative districts (the legislature draws them now). The list might
be interested in the
Raph Frank Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:31 PM
I am trying to split the decision about what level a
particular power is exercised and the power to actually make
the decision.
In any case, you get back to the circular question about who
gets to decide who gets to decide. This needs
political viewpoints and local representation of the
geographically recognisable communities within which they live.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1650 - Release Date: 03/09/2008
16:13
Election-Methods mailing
Jonathan Lundell Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 10:52 PM
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Juho wrote:
I like natural districts, so one approach would be to let people say
and let history decide. The reason why I find natural districts
natural in politics is that when people feel like
Dave Ketchum Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:54 AM
Regrettably James is making an incorrect analysis of the problem.
Oh dear! I never thought for one moment that posting a link to a relevant
news item for information would be taken as necessarily
signifying my agreement with its
Here's an alternative view from the ones I highlighted yesterday, and from the
same source:
Resurrecting E-voting
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1228tag=nl.e019
As before, with no endorsement intended, and I would not presume to comment on
the technical content.
JG
No virus
Dancing on E-voting’s grave
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1227tag=nl.e019
Election loser: touch-screen voting
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1185482.html
JG
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1636 -
Jonathan Lundell Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 3:42 PM
On Aug 25, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dividing a nation into districts before performing STV elections is
itself a constraint on the geographical distribution of the
candidates. If constraints should be done
Juho Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:56 PM
Trying to guarantee proportionality for women at national level may
be tricky if there is no woman party that the candidates and voters
could name (well, the sex of a candidate is typically known, but that
is a special case).
I think you
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 12:18 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Here are some more data on exhausted ballot in real STV-PR elections:
TASMANIAN HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY POLLS 1913-2006: INCIDENCE OF EXHAUSTED VOTES
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~prsa/history/tas_exha.htm
Raph Frank Sent: Monday
Raph Frank Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 7:55 PM
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Gilmour
I don't think registered voter chosen lists will ever get off the ground.
The compromise was that each candidate would pick his own list.
No political party is ever going to tolerate
Jonathan Lundell Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:09 PM
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
I can understand why countries that have used party list PR for many
decades are (mostly) content not to change
Raph Frank Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:50 PM
On 8/18/08, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with lists.
An assumption, I think, that voters won't have the patience
= 129 MSPs). STV-PR was once viewed in this utopian
way in the UK (in the 1880s), but now it is promoted
by practical reformers who are more attuned to the concerns of real electors.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database
Juho Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:29 PM
On Aug 17, 2008, at 20:05 , Raph Frank wrote:
The problem for parties is that the surplus doesn't remain within the
party and leads to a vote management strategy. (If none of their
candidates have a large surplus, then they get to keep most
Juho Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:29 PM
Maybe the interesting question is if voters mark sufficiently many
candidates so that their vote is not lost.
Are there any statistics from real STV-PR elections on how many votes
(sum of fragments) run out of candidates during the counting
voices are heard.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.3/1610 - Release Date: 13/08/2008 16:14
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
of all the member of the committee.
Then it MIGHT be possible for a voter to exploit the
non-monotonicity to help secure that voter's sincerely desired result.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1601 - Release Date
Vote, but it is a particular (peculiar) application of preferential
voting.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 02/08/2008
17:30
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
Kathy Dopp Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:27 AM
From: James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] IRV hurts racial minorities?
Whatever the merits or demerits of any single-winner voting system in
respective of minority representation, if you are serious about
are
in the Exhaustive Ballot?
No. None of the sources that are readily to hand gives any dates when the
Alternative Vote (the much older UK name for IRV) was
first seen as an administrative improvement for the Second Ballot and the
Exhaustive Ballot.
James Gilmour
No virus found
Kristofer
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:58 AM
James Gilmour wrote:
it would have to look at the entire ballot.
That is a consequence of your interpretation of how the voting
system
is supposed to work and what the voting system is supposed to be
doing. But that's not what IRV
not
be used to elect representative assemblies, except in
the rare situation where one or two electoral districts are so large and so
sparsely populated that only a single-member district
makes sense.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus
Markus Schulze Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:45 AM
If you are going to mess about with MMP to the
extent that you suggest in the hope of making
some significant improvements to what is
basically a very poor voting system, why not
just adopt STV-PR and do the job properly?
suggestion for Berlin.
If you are going to mess about with MMP to the extent that you suggest in the
hope of making some significant improvements to what
is basically a very poor voting system, why not just adopt STV-PR and do the
job properly?
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message
Stéphane Rouillon Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 6:02 PM
For your second point, there is one way to enforce coherency (using a
mathematical definition)
within an MMP election. If one uses the same results to elect the individual
representatives
and to determine the corrected proportion
of a different result
for French politics during the subsequent five years would be pure speculation
on my part, so I'll leave it there.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.4.5/1535 - Release Date: 04/07/2008 17:03
it looks like a multi-member first-past-the-post election in which the top
three take the three seats.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1525 - Release Date: 29/06/2008 15:09
Election-Methods mailing list - see
at least some politicians that
live near bank street.
And that is what you would get with STV-PR, so why the need to re-invent this
particular wheel?
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1515 - Release Date: 23/06/2008
thousands of public elections and
civic organisation elections that have been conducted by
the IRV voting system since it was introduced for public elections around 100
years ago?
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1512
Chris
I had no problem in Copying Pasting from the PDF file given at the link in
Kathy Dopp's e-mailed version of the revised news
release:
The full report Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting - 17 Flaws and 3 Benefits
is found on-line at
more than three candidates, so it is the only
election in which the exclusion rules could be applied fully.
Regards
James Gilmour
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:01 AM
To: [EMAIL
Fred, Juho
I have changed the subject as this post (and my reply) appeared to address a
specific subset of the problem.
You MAY find it interesting to see what was said about candidate selection in a
different but similar political system. The
Electoral Reform Society asked an independent
Juho Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:31 PM
Single-seat districts (the usual ones) provide very tight regional
representation / proportionality.
True, if you are prepared to accept that you have regional representation
when a majority of those elected are elected on minority votes.
Political
daniel radetsky Sent: 11 January 2008 03:01
On Jan 10, 2008 2:05 AM, James Gilmour
to put correct this defect we have no option but to sacrifice
something else, e.g. later no harm.
I'm not sure later-no-harm is a good thing in the first place.
Ok, so that's your opinion. As I have
. But monotonicity is a completely irrelevant criterion so far as
public elections are concerned.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1206 - Release Date: 01/01/2008
12:09
Election-Methods mailing list - see
on that assessment.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.12/1203 - Release Date: 30/12/2007
11:27
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Kevin Venzke Sent: 27 December 2007 02:16
--- James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
As I have said
before, and in other EM threads, the preferences recorded on an IRV
ballot are CONTINGENCY choices. It would be a great help to all these
discussions if both proponents
, i.e. as the contingency
choices the voters wished to record.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1198 - Release Date: 26/12/2007
17:26
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
of a multi-stage count (truncates),
that is their choice, but it does not invalidate my
statement in the immediately preceding sentence.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1197 - Release Date: 25/12/2007
the
voters. Each voter has exercised only one vote and
each voter has made an identical contribution to determining the result.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.9/1197 - Release Date: 25/12/2007
20:04
On Dec 22, 2007, at 6:45 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
If you wish to utilise in some way all the information that could be
recorded on a preferential ballot, that is a completely
different voting system from IRV, with different objectives. The
preferences are no longer 'contingency choices
Dave Ketchum Sent: 22 December 2007 21:52
Out of all this I see very little possible use for differences:
That is the problem. So you will continue to describe the different ballots
and voting systems incorrectly.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free
--- James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Kevin Venzke Sent: 28 September 2007 15:23
What are the best articles or books that can be cited here?
Voting Matters is not highly respected on Wikipedia.
Kevin, could you please elaborate on your comment about Voting
matters
I want to respond only to five specific points from our recent discussion:
Kevin asked
Have you said, in the past, how many candidates you would like to elect
in an STV district? Too
few, and you won't represent very many groups; too many, and most
people will vote solely by
party.
You'll
101 - 193 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
