Just a thought...
It seems that most countries throughout the world try and keep their
elections nice and simple, by reducing the numbers of candidates running. In
the UK they charge people for losing their deposit, in other places they
require a minimum of X% of the popular vote to get any
Whether or not they do well, having them on the list means that there will
be a broader range of voter utilities which (in my opinion) makes the
contest
more interesting. So I'll play the devil's advocate and nominate all
three of
them.
Richard
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Richard wrote:
Mr. Harper wrote in part-
The question is - is it better to reduce the number of candidates standing by
charging candidates for standing, or by having a method which isn't fully
independant from vote splitting problems? What should be aimed for in terms
of numbers of frivolous and serious
Ranking of pairs (or anything else) does NOT show any *absolute* support (on
a plus 100 percent to minus 100 percent scale).
There are at least 3 tables floating around in multiple choice elections--
1. Absolute Scale Table (100 percent to minus 100 percent) (with variants
such as limited
Dear Markus,
Before I comment on Duncan Black, I'll give an interesting quote from
Condorcet that is relevant to the current subject. He's advocating
the Condorcet criterion (though not in name). He gives an example of
three candidates, where C pairwise beats the other two, and B pairwise
Give a scale vote to each choice.
Example- Max = 100, Min = 0
A 30
B 0
C 10
D 100
E 20
F 99
The above in reality might become
A 3
B 0
C 1
D 100
E 2
F 99
There might be a requirement that no 2 choices get the same scale vote -- to
prevent ALL 100 or 0 votes - even among 2 or more
From: Craig Carey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 2001-04-12 19:09 +0100 Thursday, Martin Harper wrote:
[snip]
What have I missed? Something important clearly...
I decline to answer. I am quitting.
Thank you.
This list has subscribers that appear to be very stupid.
From: Tom Ruen
Subject: Re: [EM] 3 choices/5 voters Example
I like the idea of including a None-of-the Above choice
(explicit or implicit) and if this "choice" wins the
election, then all the candidates are discarded and a new
election must be held with all new candidates! This is the
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
Subject: [EM] no primary
Anthony wrote:
In other words, two
round runoff. No more primary.
Not that big a change.
I reply:
Getting rid of the primary and switching from Plurality to
Runoff are big changes. [...]
You left out some things. The plan that was
Rob wrote:
But
when it comes to margins vs. winning-votes (also known as votes-against
or defeat-support), I don't think strategy turns out to be an issue,
unfortunately, because winning-votes doesn't actually get around the
problem. Under winning-votes, a voter can order sincere ties in
10 matches
Mail list logo
