On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:32:55 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 02:37 AM 6/7/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Is this trip necessary?
>
>
> Yes. At least as necessary as any discussion of ideal election methods,
> actual election methods, and possible intermediary steps.
>
>> I claim not, fo
I choke on your collection of methods:
Imposing both range and ranked choice demands that the voter consider both
methods. It also complicates the ballot and the counting.
No point to having both IRV and Condorcet:
Usually they will select the same winner.
When IRV fails it will off
Yup.
http://betterpolls.com/et?vrr=-clist&if=-d&cand=4&seats=1&data=F%3ES%3EP%3DB%0D%0AP%3EB%3EF%3DS%0D%0AS%3EP%3EF%3DB%0D%0AP%3ES%3EF%3DB%0D%0AF%3ES%3EP%3DB%0D%0AF%3DS%3DP%3DB
6 votes is a kinda small sample (5 really, a=b=c=d is pretty much
abstention).
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wr
Just got this via my Condorcet Calculator (http://condorcet.ericgorr.net) and
thought others would be interested. All Condorcet methods picked the same
winner. All IRV methods picked the same winner. The winners of Condorcet and
IRV methods were different.
here's the info I got:
My book club
Hey there, you all. I've been off the list for a while.
Recently I read The Wisdom of Crowds (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
), and one thing that struck me is how important it is that when
aggregating the opinions of a group, it is crucial that each vote be
indepe
several comments about it have been posted in RV
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/
although there were some errors in some of the earlier comments that were
corrected
later. NlogN algorithsm were also proposed in the RV posts, although
Heitzig's own NlogN algorithm seems simpler than th
At 02:37 AM 6/7/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>Is this trip necessary?
Yes. At least as necessary as any discussion of ideal election
methods, actual election methods, and possible intermediary steps.
>I claim not, for it is not up to competing with Condorcet - or even IRV,
>which usually gets the r
Alex,
--- Alex Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Kevin-
>
> I have looked at one or two of Woodall's papers. Do you have a
> reference for that "continuous" criterion? It's not quite what I'm
> looking for, but it's close.
Unfortunately I don't see it prior to the 2003 draft article "
Anthony O'Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (This is the election I pulled out of the Wikipedia article for
CPO-STV.
> I just didn't feel like making up an election where the results from
> CPO-STV and STV differ right now. If you want to see how
> the results for the CPO-STV and STV results we
On 6/7/06, Anthony O'Neal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (PS, does anyone know what the BTR part of BTR-IRV means? Honestly, I can't
> figure it out, but that's what Warren on Rangevoting.com calls it. I'm
> thinking of changing the name to Majority Elimination by IRV, or ME-IRV, and
> ME-STV, but
10 matches
Mail list logo
