On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:56:01 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
In simulation there is value, and sometimes excessive temptation, in
tailoring test cases to favor a desired result.
Maybe try an open simulator. Make the electorate engine pluggable
so experimenters can try
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I do not understand 'no resolution':
By time N1 there have been 10 votes in the poll - to analyze as a complete
Condorcet election.
By time N2 there have been 2 more, for a total of 12 to analyze as if a
complete election.
Any such election may produce a CW.
Those
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:12:21 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I do not understand 'no resolution':
By time N1 there have been 10 votes in the poll - to analyze as a complete
Condorcet election.
By time N2 there have been 2 more, for a total of 12 to analyze as if a
complete
Dave Ketchum wrote:
In simulation there is value, and sometimes excessive temptation, in
tailoring test cases to favor a desired result.
Maybe try an open simulator. Make the electorate engine pluggable
so experimenters can try different voting behaviours. That should
protect against
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:52:31 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Cycles happen, and perhaps should be reported, but are NOT a reason for he
system to do anything special beyond normal analysis and reporting.
Of course reporting should e based on total voting, thus updated as soon
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I see the Condorcet phantom as going thru the same motions as a real
primary or general election, but letting the real elections do the
nominating and pay no official attention to results of the phantom.
I see a phantom that will nevertheless have real effects (ghost in
Dave Ketchum wrote:
When there is a cycle (3 or more in a near tie) there could be demos
of whatever resolution procedures please someone.
I was never concerned with a final decision. I doubt these are in
your ballpark:
a) Time. Votes are shiftable. If electorate wants to be decisive,
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:19:52 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
When there is a cycle (3 or more in a near tie) there could be demos
of whatever resolution procedures please someone.
I was never concerned with a final decision. I doubt these are in
your ballpark:
I see the
For some reason, I didn't receive Dave Ketchum's reply to my post about
the Condorcet party. So let's try this again, indeed.
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:05:28 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
My goal is using Condorcet, but recognizing that everything
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:45:14 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
For some reason, I didn't receive Dave Ketchum's reply to my post about
the Condorcet party. So let's try this again, indeed.
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:05:28 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The idea of having a Condorcet party is to gradually transform Plurality
elections into Condorcet elections.
Disturbing existing elections by marrying in something from Condorcet seems
very destructive considering
11 matches
Mail list logo
