At 07:26 AM 7/22/2008, Michael Allan wrote:
I'm grateful I was directed to this list. You're clearly experts. I
wish I could reply more completely right away (I should know better
than to start 2 separate threads). I'll just reply to Juho's
questions today, and tomorrow I'll look at Abd's
At 03:49 PM 7/22/2008, Juho wrote:
On Jul 22, 2008, at 14:26 , Michael Allan wrote:
What is btw the reason that there were no arrows forward from the two
leading candidates in the election snapshot picture in the references
page? Did they abstain or were their votes (not even their own vote)
At 03:59 AM 7/23/2008, Michael Allan wrote:
Juho wrote:
What is btw the reason that there were no arrows forward from the two
leading candidates in the election snapshot picture in the
references page?
Did they abstain or were their votes (not even their own vote)
not cascaded
forward
On Jul 26, 2008, at 12:41 , Michael Allan wrote:
OK. The dynamic is complex, and hard to predict. I'm curious to see
what happens in reality. Marcus Pivato said there's no way to model
this stuff in vitro (simulations), we have to run it in vivo.
I think it is possible to find and study
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:05 , Michael Allan wrote:
Rankings are determined by votes incoming, not votes held. This is
crucial. (It was only decided a couple of releases ago, so there may
inconstencies in the docs.)
Ok, this seems to bring the model closer to what Kristofer
Munsterhjelm
Juho wrote:
http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht#cascade-cyclic
Let's say that in Figure 9 there are three candidates that are interested
in getting lots of votes. They could be the very top candidate (T), the
bottom left candidate (L) and the bottom right candidate (R).
On Jul 23, 2008, at 10:59 , Michael Allan wrote:
(ii) Otherwise, A is a mosquito voting for an elephant!
You seem to assume that there is a hierarchy of voters that is used
for communication in the political process, and that this hierarchy
is determined (maybe even formally) by the
Juho wrote:
On Jul 22, 2008, at 14:26 , Michael Allan wrote:
I'm grateful I was directed to this list. You're clearly experts. I
wish I could reply more completely right away (I should know better
than to start 2 separate threads). I'll just reply to Juho's
questions today, and tomorrow
At 07:36 AM 7/21/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
That sounds very much like Delegable Proxy, which Abd says was first
thought of by Dodgson (Lewis Carroll). In DP, as far as I understand
it, voters associate with proxies (delegates in your terminology)
and the proxies accumulate votes
Hi,
Some more comments and questions on the properties of the proposed
method.
1) All voters are candidates and it is possible that all voters
consider themselves to be the best candidate. Therefore the method
may start from all candidates having one vote each (their own vote).
Maybe
Hello to the list,
I'm a software engineer, currently developing an online electoral
system. I was in another discussion (link at bottom) and a subscriber
recommended this list to me. I have a few questions, if anyone is
able to help.
A key component of the electoral system (to explain) is
11 matches
Mail list logo
