On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 21:35 -0500, Warren Smith wrote:
> Arguably STV multiwinner electiosn are still of interest for single-winner
> purposes since the FIRST winner is a single-winner IRV winner.
Not really. Consider the following:
300 voters, 2 winners (Droop quota of 101)
101 A
99 B, C
100 C
Arguably STV multiwinner electiosn are still of interest for single-winner
purposes since the FIRST winner is a single-winner IRV winner.
Gilmour is correct (I am happy to now learn) that Ireland is now posting
full vote lists in some (all?) STV elections on the www. I grabbed the
Dublin country
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 18:08 -0500, Joseph Malkevitch wrote:
> Dear Scott,
>
> You wrote:
> > Also note that it is an NP-complete problem to figure
> > out if the election was non-monotonic from the voting data in the first
> > place.
> >
> The way I use the term non-monotonic it refers to an elec
There are many uses for election methods besides public election proposals.
They are used in various sports contexts, pattern recognition software, search
engines, etc.Cross fertilization between disciplines is one of the greatest
stimulants of progress. When the Cartesian coordinate syste
Paul Kislanko asked ...
Why introduce "majority dense" and not use that?
Forest answers:
1. Because it wasn't necessary for the purpose of my message, which was to
nudge readers out of their mental ruts.
2. Is the introducer the only one who can use an idea?
Paul went on to ask ...
H
> Warren Smith Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:09 PM
> I do not understand why these elections are of interest to
> single-winner voting researchers. Two reasons for my
> non-interest: 1. they are multiwiner elections. 2. Assuming
> one of these is an interesting election, we are unable to
yes, I'd be interesed in yor IR presidential election data etc.
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:09 -0500, Warren Smith wrote:
> http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=asucd
>
> So far there have been 4 elections.
> Each is a multiwinner election (e.g. the latest was 8 winners and 23
> candidates)
> apparently run with reweighted STV voting.
>
> Each has a repo
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 20:57 -0500, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> The flaw in what Mr. Ritchie wrote was the assumption that, in
> cumulative voting, every voter gets the same number of votes. With
> that assumption, *of course* cumulative voting does not violate the
> 1p1v principle. But cumulati
http://davischoicevoting.org/index.php?page=asucd
So far there have been 4 elections.
Each is a multiwinner election (e.g. the latest was 8 winners and 23 candidates)
apparently run with reweighted STV voting.
Each has a report about it with lots of charts and graphs.
Each has had between 2447 an
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I probably haven't seen the official definition of Anonymity, but it goes
something like this:
The same ways of voting must be available to all voters.
For any configuration of voted ballots, it shouldn't make any difference
which person voted which ballot.
[end of
11 matches
Mail list logo
