Re: [EM] On IRV compressability

In summary, IRV needs more effort for storing data than Condorcet, but it is not as bad as the "29%" horror story that Brian responds to. Also, the skipping of less used choices does not work if you are collecting data as you read the ballots - you do not know which choices are less used until yo

Re: [EM] Real IRV Election, Disputable Result

On 3/12/06, radio deli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Jan, > > I saw your post on the Elections Methods List. As a Vermont legislator, we > may have to decide the issue of IRV on a statewide basis. Welcome, Jim! Thank you for taking an interest in voting reform, and in what this group has t

[EM] Condorcet & Burying

Jonathan Lundell wrote: > What we want, it seems to me, is to be able to persuade the voter to > vote sincerely, and to do so honestly. The problem with burying is > that it's a both simple and relatively obvious, and in particular > elections might become widespread. Which is why voter educat

Re: [EM] On IRV compressability

At 10:26 PM + 3/15/06, Gervase Lam wrote: > > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:52:56 -0800 >> From: Brian Olson >> Subject: [EM] On IRV compressability > >> How summable or not is an IRV election? > >Here is the one attempt I remember reading at making IRV summable: > >

Re: [EM] Real IRV Election, Disputable Result

At 4:46 PM -0500 3/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >So my questions are, given the many different possible numbers >and varieties of candidates in different elections, combined with >the varying concerns different voters will have about different >candidates, how often are voters likely to use a bu

Re: [EM] Real IRV Election, Disputable Result

I have doubts about how "serious" the strategic burying problem really is. Most discussions I've seen on this list (and I'll admit that I haven't always read them very carefully) seem to greatly oversimplify the strategy problem by assuming that the major strategic concern of voters is to help thei