Can you post the coordinates you used for the 10 choice example?
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> At http://www.geocities.com/stepjak/index.htm I've posted some graphs
> I've generated. The first part is a number of treatments of a three-
> candidate scen
Brian,
--- Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Would it be a reasonable adjustment to the zero info strategy that when
> there an odd number of choices, vote with a 50% chance on a voter's
> middle
> choice? If the strategy is to vote yes for the top half and no for the
> bottom half, t
The images on your site are compelling and interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/raphfrk/
I've added random tiebreaking to ApprovalNoInfo in my own code and I'm
re-running those images. With a little luck my computer will run them by
morning.
I like how it shows regions where the outcome becom
Hi,
Thanks for running VFA, Brian.
I've been reinventing the wheel myself the last few days, so I can
withdraw the suggestion that you should run the code for VFA with poll.
(My version can take up to 10 candidates. I've only been doing 160x160
graphs with under 500 voters, though. And (thus) my
I slightly modified the ApprovalNoInfo code and re-ran.
Basically, I added:
if ( m2 == m && random()%2 == 0 )
{
winner=second_place;
}
This just randomly swaps the winner with the 2nd place candidate
if they tie rather then consistantly going one way. This gives
a more balanced resu
I have been reading up on election methods for some time, and discovered
this list through some of my searches for information.
Anyway, the student government at my college currently uses a voting system
which is quite stupid. For single-winner elections,
they use simple plurality - spoiler effe
Zoomed out a factor of ten, some odd results show up far from the
grouping of candidates:
http://bolson.org/voting/sim_one_seat/zoomout/
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Ratio vs difference is important if one is choosing between Webster and Hill
according to their transfer propertions; or if one is measuring bias by the
s/q disparity of big states and small states; or in the application of
Adjusted Roundoff.
The Constitution and the notion of proportionality
The 1790 apportionment results, and their bias test, demonstrate what I've
been saying: Hill signifiantly favors smaller states over larger ones, with
much more bias than Hamilton or Webster.
The greatest ratio by which s/q varies is minimized by Hill, of course. The
_differences_ in s/q ar
I was thinking of another way to do the averaging.
What about taking the residents per seat before and after the State being
allocated
a seat.
This also has the effect where all states get at least 1 seat.
The measure would be:
A = (1/2)*(P/n + P/(n+1))
This gives:
n -> P/A
0
10 matches
Mail list logo
