On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> by this margin? What happens if the supermajority-required option only
> transitively defeats the default option? How do we numerically define
> the margin
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the mos
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
>Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
^^^
Schwartz.
*gibber*
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:33:34PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
> How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
> (Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
> particularly good when the most important thing is to
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:58:28AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Must a supermajority-required option directly defeat the default option
> by this margin? What happens if the supermajority-required option only
> transitively defeats the default option? How do we numerically define
> the margin
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 6. If more than one option remains after the above steps, we use
>Cloneproof Schultz Sequential Dropping to eliminate any cyclic
^^^
Schwartz.
*gibber*
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECT
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the most important thing is to avoid causing a
furious schism.)
--Nathanael
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
> offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer
> the following draft proposal as the beginning of a General Resolution
> process to decide thi
Dear Raul,
you wrote (14 Nov 2002):
> Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no
> other option D such that C transitively defeats D AND D does
> not transitively defeat C.
I guess you mean:
> Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no
> other option D such tha
Yow, Debian uses a ludicrously complicated voting system.
How was it chosen in the first place anyway?
(Personally, I'm an approval voting fan. Easy to understand, and
particularly good when the most important thing is to avoid causing a
furious schism.)
--Nathanael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 07:21:34PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Pursuant to Appendix A of the Debian Constitution and the guidelines
> offered at http://www.debian.org/vote/howto_proposal, I hereby offer
> the following draft proposal as the beginning of a General Resolution
> process to decide thi
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
>the weakest defeats are eliminated.
>
>Definition: The strength of a defeat is represented by two
>numbers: the number of votes
--- Begin Message ---
I'm sorry that the program that I sent to you
had some errors:
I inadvertently used "=" when I should have used
"==", for equality-testing.
I missed the fact that for, if, elif, else, and
while statements must be followed by a colon ":".
In the line toward the end, where
This draft fixes some serious flaws in the expression of the concept of
"weakest defeat", and other problems.
Please let me know if there are any additional ambiguities or other
errors.
A.6 Vote Counting
1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
specified by the
Dear Raul,
you wrote (14 Nov 2002):
> Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no
> other option D such that C transitively defeats D AND D does
> not transitively defeat C.
I guess you mean:
> Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no
> other option D such tha
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:12:21PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schultz set,
>the weakest defeats are eliminated.
>
>Definition: The strength of a defeat is represented by two
>numbers: the number of votes
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
> >defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
> >quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.
> ^^
>is
> Raul Miller:
> >The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> >the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> >of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> >favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
On Thu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Definition: A "ballot" consists of a ranking A>B>C>D>... of options
> submitted by a voter. It defines a total ordering of options for a
> particular voter (i.e., for any pair of options A and B, we can claim
> that a particular vo
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
> > Yes.
> However, it's not true for the general case. Imagine you have two
> options and they're tied. Then, both options would be in the schwartz
> set
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:39:39PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:11:04PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Yes.
Be careful here.
It should be true for th
--- Begin Message ---
I'm sorry that the program that I sent to you
had some errors:
I inadvertently used "=" when I should have used
"==", for equality-testing.
I missed the fact that for, if, elif, else, and
while statements must be followed by a colon ":".
In the line toward the end, where
This draft fixes some serious flaws in the expression of the concept of
"weakest defeat", and other problems.
Please let me know if there are any additional ambiguities or other
errors.
A.6 Vote Counting
1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
specified by the
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> I think we need to come up with better, understandable, language.
>
Right.
> Is it accurate to say that if x is in the Set, and y>>x, then y is in
> the set?
>
Yes.
> Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> defeats nothing), then x is NOT in t
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
> >defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
> >quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.
> ^^
>is
> Raul Miller:
> >The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> >the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> >of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> >favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
On Thu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:13:14PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Definition: A "ballot" consists of a ranking A>B>C>D>... of options
> submitted by a voter. It defines a total ordering of options for a
> particular voter (i.e., for any pair of options A and B, we can claim
> that a particular vo
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
> > Yes.
> However, it's not true for the general case. Imagine you have two
> options and they're tied. Then, both options would be in the schwartz
> set
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 01:39:39PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> > defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:11:04PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Yes.
Be careful here.
It should be true for th
Hi,
Buddha Buck:
> I think we need to come up with better, understandable, language.
>
Right.
> Is it accurate to say that if x is in the Set, and y>>x, then y is in
> the set?
>
Yes.
> Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x
> defeats nothing), then x is NOT in t
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
The correct restatement is something more like:
{ x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
The correct restatement is something more like:
{ x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost unbeaten
Dear Manoj,
the Floyd algorithm to calculate the beat paths from
each candidate to each other candidate looks as follows
(Markus Schulze; 17 Oct 2002):
> for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
> for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
> for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
>
Dear Manoj,
the Floyd algorithm to calculate the beat paths from
each candidate to each other candidate looks as follows
(Markus Schulze; 17 Oct 2002):
> for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
> for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
> for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
>
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
>
W
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:16:40AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
> >defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
> >quorum require
Hi,
Here is mail from Mike Ossipoff with code for SSD. I am also
including aj's Perl code that was used in the last election.
manoj
cloneproof_ssd.pl
Description: clone proof ssd
--- Begin Message ---
Some time ago I sent to you a pasted copy of our
website's Python program,
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 06:03:54PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 4. If an option has a supermajority requirement, that option must
>defeat the default option by the ratio of votes specified in the
>quorum requirement or the option is eliminated.
^^
is t
Hi,
So who did come up with the mistake "Schultz", and did they eat too many
peanuts? ;-)
Anthony Towns:
> The correct restatement is something more like:
>
> { x | forall y: y >> x --> x >>> y }
>
Or, in understandable language: The Schwartz set is the innermost unbeaten
set, or the sma
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> The more votes in favor of a defeated option, the weaker
> the defeat. Where two pairs of options have the same number
> of votes in favor of the defeated option, the fewer votes in
> favor of the defeating option, the weaker the defeat.
>
W
40 matches
Mail list logo
