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
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:09:49 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum Sent: 22 December 2007 18:01
Conceded that some could like IRV, even after understanding what it does.
It wasn't my intent to make any point for or against IRV, but it interesting
another thread is discussing the
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
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:03:03 - James Gilmour wrote:
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.
Topic of the
Of
Markus Schulze
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Borda-elimination, a Condorcet method
for public elections?
Dear Ian Fellows,
the Nanson method and the Baldwin method violate
monotonicity and independence of clones. They also
violate
Schulze
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Borda-elimination, a Condorcet method
for public elections?
Dear Ian Fellows,
the Nanson method and the Baldwin method violate
monotonicity and independence of clones. They also
violate
] ]On Behalf Of
Markus Schulze
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 1:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Borda-elimination, a Condorcet method
for public elections?
Dear Ian Fellows,
the Nanson method and the Baldwin method violate
monotonicity and independence
