At 09:31 PM 6/22/2006, Jan Kok wrote:
>On 6/22/06, Simmons, Forest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we unite with IRV supporters to enact ranked ballots, on the condition
> > that the "back end" will be decided later, then we can get ranked ballots
> > enacted, and the back end decided in a less
From: Jan Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On 6/22/06, Simmons, Forest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If we unite with IRV supporters to enact ranked ballots, on the
condition
>> that the "back end" will be decided later, then we can get ranked
ballots
>> enacted, and the back end decided in a less
On 6/22/06, Simmons, Forest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we unite with IRV supporters to enact ranked ballots, on the condition
> that the "back end" will be decided later, then we can get ranked ballots
> enacted, and the back end decided in a less charged atmosphere. Many IRV
> supporters, w
Title: Re: [EM] On Naming and Advocacy
From: Jan Kok
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wed 6/21/2006 10:48
AMTo: Simmons, ForestSubject: Re: [EM] On Naming and
Advocacy
On 6/21/06, Simmons, Forest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:>>>> Jan,>> It seems to me that
decoup
Trying clarification for RRT:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:28:44 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about instant pairwise voting (IPV) as a good
> descriptive name for Condorcet? I'm just throwing
> this out, not advocating it. It apparently hasn't been
> used much, because a Google search resulted in
How about instant pairwise voting (IPV) as a good
descriptive name for Condorcet? I'm just throwing
this out, not advocating it. It apparently hasn't been
used much, because a Google search resulted in
no hits. So that would be one drawback, though I
think a minor one. Its big advantage is that IPV
> I believe that (on the political front) we should temporarily not worry about
> which ranked ballot method we are pushing for, and focus on promoting (as an
> election method framework) the ranked ballot with the candidate withdrawal
> and selection from published rankings options.
Forest, ha
I agree with Brian Olson and RL Suter in the main point below that from the
voter point of view, for methods that rely on ranked ballots this common
feature looms larger than the difference in how the winner is determined once
those ranked ballots have been submitted by the voters.
As Steve Ep
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 13:40:26 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Brian Olson wrote:
>
>
>>Outside this list, I've been plugging "rankings and
>>ratings ballots" as the generic label for the issue.
>>I deliberately want to leave the back-end counting method
>>vague due to the IRV - the world feud.
>>
Brian Olson wrote:
>Outside this list, I've been plugging "rankings and
>ratings ballots" as the generic label for the issue.
>I deliberately want to leave the back-end counting method
>vague due to the IRV - the world feud.
That's an important point. As voting methods as opposed
to counting meth
"free voting" does indeed have nice connotations in the free-as-in-freedom
way. Free can also mean unrestricted and unregulated and someone specially
cynical might take that to mean we're free to stuff the ballot box. :-/
Outside this list, I've been plugging "rankings and ratings ballots" as
t
11 matches
Mail list logo
