MCA satisfies both conditions (clone free and avoidance of favorite
betrayal). It does use range style ballots, but it elects the
candidate with the greatest median rating. If there are several
candidates tied for greatest median rating, it elects the one with the
greatest number of ballots th
Hi,
last year, Marcello Herreshoff and I worked on a voting method which we
called Hay Voting (after our friend Nick Hay). There's a description of
the method online here:
http://www.spaceandgames.com/?p=8
We wanted a voting method such that a voter's optimal strategy is to
report his or her tru
On 1/19/07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:33 PM 1/19/2007, Ken Kuhlman wrote:
> >Free speech may be messy, but it's better than selling our souls &
> >bowing before a moderator czar.
>
> That's not the only possible solution. Indeed, the solution has been
> known as in wide
> O: I made no attack. I merely stated that B/(q+1) is a function that can
approximate the density function of states over the range of populations. I
don't claim it to be more than a rough approximation.
--well, no. Non-normalizable "probability distributions" are not probability
distribution
At 12:33 PM 1/19/2007, Ken Kuhlman wrote:
>Do you find it at all ironic to be recommending the establishment of
>a dictator
>to solve the problems of a group dedicated to promoting democracy &
>election methods?
I did, and I wrote to him.
>Free speech may be messy, but it's better than selling o
Where a & b are 2 consecutive ingegers, Jefferson, having b as its rounding
point is very large-biased, and Adams, with a as its rounding point, is very
small-biased.
So it stands to reason that there's some roundng p;oint inbetween that is
unbiased.
But how could it be? Bias-Free's roiunding
Fit the definite integral, from 0 to Q (where Q is a particular state's q)
of B/(q+A) to the data points consisting of the states' q and their
cumulative numbers. The smallest state's cumulative number is 1. The 2nd
smallest state's cumutive number is 2.
That is, fit B*ln(Q/A+1) to the data po
> >> --- "Brandon J. Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> >>>
> >>> This kind of back-and-forth has convinced me that your list has no value
> >>> whatsoever. I'm unsubscribing. I suggest you go to a moderated format
> >>> and put a muzzle on people who are precipitating this kind of nonsens
Dear Elections List,
Some comments about apportionment.
1. The major contribution of E.V. Huntington to the study of
apportionment methods was to call attention to fairness questions
with regard to moving one seat assigned to some state to another
state. This led him to study "divisor met
I've tried several wordings for CW's in-cycle apportionment. I was using an
unambiguous wording, but it was long. I shortened it, but introduced
ambiguity. But here's a brief but unambiguous wording:
Each cycle's seats are given to its states in such a way that no state in
that cycle recieves f
Ironically the definition of Adjusted-Rounding that I've been posting since
I first described it, the very brief definition, is complete, and my
"detailed instruction" has an ambiguity:
The brief definition says that AR is a divisor method, differing from the
others in that, instead of having a
In a recent posting, you implied that Adjusted-Rounding is not independent
of the distribution, and that you have a modification that is. That suggests
that you're saying that Adjusted-Rounding is something other than the AR
that I've defined, and that maybe your "modification" is, in fact,
Ad
This Part 1 apparently didn't post, so I'm re-sending it (and necessarily
re-writing it, since I didn't save it):
Warren said:
Ithe underlying theoretial attack is
exactly
that suggested by Mike Ossipoff for his "bias free Webster" method
I reply:
None of my 4 methods has that name. There are
In a recent message, I said B/(q+1) when I meant B/(q+A).
Mike Ossipoff
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Warren said:
Subjectively speaking, I do not see why the advantages that we can gain from
going
to this sort of method, are worth the cost of losing monotonicity (because
such a loss seems based on the historical evidence to make a method
politically
unacceptable).
I reply:
I don't know whether
Concerning Ossipoff's latest "AR" ("adjusted rounding") apportionment
method,
explained in his post titled
"Detailed (but obvious) instructions for Adjusted-Rounding"
it sounds interesting.
To take a more abstract view of this: it seems to me that what you can
accomplish with
the idea of trea
I will say that
generally, when
such an attack is required, it is a symptom of rot in one's underlying model
which it
would be better to fix)
I reply:
I made no attack. I merely stated that B/(q+1) is a function that can
approximate the density function of states over the range of populations
17 matches
Mail list logo
