On Apr 22, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I missed the fact that Dave was answering my question here, and so
I'll reply to his answer:
I'd said:
Approved ratings wins. The result? Well, we'd be electing the most
approved candidate, wouldn't we. Who can criticize that?
Dave
I missed the fact that Dave was answering my question here, and so I'll
reply to his answer:
I'd said:
Approved ratings wins. The result? Well, we'd be electing the most
approved candidate, wouldn't we. Who can criticize that?
* Dave says: ** *
* The voter who did not have equal liking for
After posting today, I noticed the description of LRV.
So my list of FBC/ABE methods wasn't complete, and there are 7 of them instead
of 6.
What are the entries for LRV in my FBC/ABE methods properties table?
Mike Ossipoff
Election-Methods
Robt Bristow-Johnson:
I disagree. However, we don't really know the how the mechanics of
approval will work out in practice.
Abd Lomax:
Well, that's not entirely true. Approval Voting was used for hundreds
of years in Venice...
--well, it'd be interesting to see your reactions to my attempt to
On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
...
http://rangevoting.org/PopeElectionStories.html
Read 'em, you'll be amused, horrified, and freaked out probably.
It's amazing the shenanigans they did.
and some of them shenanigans are documented in The Da Vinci Files.
:-)
--
r b-j
:)
More later.
Alex
--- On Mon, 8/23/10, election-methods-requ...@lists.electorama.com
election-methods-requ...@lists.electorama.com wrote:
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:43:38 -0400
From: Warren Smith warren@gmail.com
To: election-methods election-meth...@electorama.com
Subject: [EM
Dear Alex Small
your FBC manuscript looks interesting. The typesetting is sometimes
annoying (use of * for multiply).
Kevin Venzke is quite right he invented MDDA not me.
Ossipoff has 2 Fs. Warren D. Smith has a D.
Your paper is long. It needs to be written to be more accessible.
Think how
The way I read it, it seems he suggests SFBC is too strong. If you
insist upon SFBC, you get a method that treats at least the two first
ranks equally, either directly (type 1) or indirectly (type 2). Thus you
can either insist on SFBC and have methods that treat the top two of a
voter's
Admitting that I didn'f fully follow the topic:
I think my selfish incentives are enough to make me
vote. Maybe I have also altruistic incentives but they
are surplus. Also, my selfish incentives in great part
have ethical and community nature, but still selfish.
How can a selfish motive have
Terry Bouricius:
I'm not sure if it is quite at the layman level, but Prof. Nicloaus
Tideman's recent book Collective Decisions and Voting has an analysis of
vulnerability to strategic manipulation of virtually every single-winner
voting method that has ever been proposed and concludes that Range
On Nov 8, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
2. Bouricius forgot to mention, same way he usually forgets to
mention, that Tideman also found IRV to be unsupportable.
conditionally supportable, actually.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
under a condition which is, in fact, violated.
On 11/8/09, Jonathan Lundell jlund...@pobox.com wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
2. Bouricius forgot to mention, same way he usually forgets to
mention, that Tideman also found IRV to be unsupportable.
conditionally
Response to Warren... inserted below each of his points (marked by ***)
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Warren Smith warren@gmail.com
To: election-methods election-meth...@electorama.com
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 1:00 PM
Subject: [EM] (no subject)
Terry Bouricius
On Nov 2, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Juho wrote:
Ok, these examples are sort of second level behind the hottest
political arena. It makes sense not to involve party politics e.g.
in decision making in the schools. Are there maybe counties/cities
where the primary decision making body would have
On Nov 1, 2009, at 10:49 PM, Juho wrote:
Firstly, STV-PR can be used in all public elections, including
those that are non-partisan.
Yes. Non-partisan multi-winner elections are however rare in
politics. They may be more common e.g. when electing only a small
number of representatives
On Nov 1, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
I made an attempt to create a basic explanation on an earlier post
to this list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods@lists.electorama.com/
msg04195.html
which says:
One of the hardest parts about PR-STV is actually explaining
robert bristow-johnson Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:44 PM
whose *ballot* gets their vote transferred? it shouldn't matter in
which order the counting is. if my ballot is needed to give the
candidate what he needs, and your ballot isn't needed, then you got
to influence the
On Nov 2, 2009, at 9:54 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
robert bristow-johnson Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:44 PM
whose *ballot* gets their vote transferred? it shouldn't matter in
which order the counting is. if my ballot is needed to give the
candidate what he needs, and your ballot isn't
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:25 AM, robert bristow-johnson
r...@audioimagination.com wrote:
whose *ballot* gets their vote transferred? it shouldn't matter in which
order the counting is. if my ballot is needed to give the candidate what
he
needs, and your ballot isn't needed, then you got to
Ok, these examples are sort of second level behind the hottest
political arena. It makes sense not to involve party politics e.g. in
decision making in the schools. Are there maybe counties/cities where
the primary decision making body would have remained non-partisan?
Juho
On Nov 2,
I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list
system. But I'm a political realist, and I think that STV is the system
that would be easiest to implement in America. With our loose coalition
Democrat and Republican parties, and our large base of independents,
people are
Anthony O'Neal Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:12 AM
I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list
system.
I think STV-PR is better than open-list party-list PR in three ways.
Firstly, STV-PR can be used in all public elections, including those that are
I made an attempt to create a basic explanation on an earlier post to this list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/election-methods@lists.electorama.com/msg04195.html
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Nov 1, 2009, at 5:59 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
Anthony O'Neal Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:12 AM
I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list
system.
I think STV-PR is better than open-list party-list PR in three ways.
Firstly, STV-PR can be used in all
:(
This is sad knews, no matter what the anti-STV fanatics say. STV had
flaws, it's still a far better system than FPP. The anti-STV campaign
put out a huge misinformation campaign which did nothing but say Hey
look at how complicated STV is? AN ALGORITHM FOR VOTING! WHY EVEN HAVE
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
Kathy Dopp Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 2:17 AM
Your statement oversimplifies and ignores details/differences
between IRV and Condorcet. IRV proponents may pretend not to
know that Condorcet methods do not exhibit most of the flaws
of IRV counting methods. For example, Condorcet, to
I have not inspected the affidavits for completeness or correctness. I am
only comparing the methods.
Assuming IRV's rules result in declaring A or B winner, it would not care
or look at what this voter may have said about C or D.
Condorcet looks at all that the voters say, and uses all of
Dave Ketchum Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:59 PM
I have not inspected the affidavits for completeness or
correctness. I am only comparing the methods.
Assuming IRV's rules result in declaring A or B winner, it would not care
or look at what this voter may have said about C or D.
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 23:28:01 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:59 PM
I have not inspected the affidavits for completeness or
correctness. I am only comparing the methods.
Assuming IRV's rules result in declaring A or B winner, it would not care
or
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 and to
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 and
James seems to be stretching his interpretation a bit far.
Agreed that, while the voter can choose to rank all candidates, the voter
is permitted to omit those least desired.
In Condorcet every ballot is counted. For each the counter considers EVERY
pair of candidates, such as A and B. If
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 04:11:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] New MN court affidavits etc. (correction)
Dave,
Are you really comfortable supporting and supplying ammunition to a group of
avowed FPP supporters in their effort to have IRV declared
34 matches
Mail list logo
