Dear Dave Ketchum,
you wrote (20 Feb 2007):
Could there be a better name than minmax?
I recommend the name Simpson-Kramer.
Markus Schulze
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Juho wrote:
My sympathies towards minmax(margins) come primarily from the way it handles
sincere votes.
I reply:
But there wont be sincere votes for it to handle, to the extent that it
doesnt allow sincere votes. Thats why the defensive strategy criteria, and
the wv Condorcet methods
It calls for a little comment. A number of times before, I've proposed
polls, and usually a number of people voted. Enough to do a meaningful,
interesting count. This is the first one in which not even one person (other
than myself) voted.
Obviously that's always a possibility. It was a
Personally I blame the ballot design for this undervote...
Joking aside, has anyone seen any good research into ballot design for these
various election methods? Anything relating to instructional information?
- Chris
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike,
--- Michael Ossipoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I've told a number of advantages of my poll over the usual Internet
automated polls. Another advantage that I haven't mentioned yet is that,
with list-posted ballots, you can obsereve the votes coming in, and can
count them
Hi,
This post is just about criteria generally.
--- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
At 10:52 AM 2/19/2007, Kevin Venzke wrote:
--- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Election criteria sometimes presume omniscience. For example, the
Majority Criterion is based
Mike,
I guess a wiki would be the best way to do the poll then... The votes
could be posted in a single place, changed at will, and discussed on a
talk page.
I reply:
...changed at will is the part that I don't quite like. I've never
understood the appeal of a wiki, where what you send might
To comment on the last part first:
Kevin says:
(Although, incidentally, Mike's criticism that my scheme can't be used to
show that Approval and Range fail SFC is quite strange. SFC is defined on
sincere preferences. If Mike means what I use in place of SFC
I reply:
Yes, I thought Id
Relax Michael,
I have other things to do than learn about possible candidates for US
presidential election. But it is in my list.
It will come, all in good time.
Just wait...
I did not even found the time to answer 10 other EM
interesting posts.
Stéphane Rouillon
From: Michael Ossipoff [EMAIL
Candidate X covers candidate Y
if and only if
X defeats (pairwise) both Y and each candidate that Y defeats.
An uncovered candidate is one that is not covered by any candidate.
Method 1. If the approval winner A is uncovered, then elect A.
Otherwise elect the highest
Few thoughts about wiki and public voting:
- I guess people will be more mainstream when their votes can be
seen by others = extreme groups that are not generally liked (in the
media, by friends etc.) will get less support
- Some voters don't want to state their opinion in public at all
I agree that minmax is not a good name. It refers maybe too much to
the algorithm that can be used to seek the winner. Voters should not
worry about that. And if one adds the (margins) part in the name
gets even more complicated and algorithm oriented.
For me minmax and minmax(margins) are
On Feb 20, 2007, at 15:39 , Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Juho wrote:
My sympathies towards minmax(margins) come primarily from the way
it handles sincere votes.
I reply:
But there won’t be sincere votes for it to handle, to the extent
that it doesn’t allow sincere votes. That’s why the
13 matches
Mail list logo
