I said:
The B voters, by truncating, make the would-be reversers accept the Nash
equilibrium or suffer the consequences.
I meant The C voters instead of The B voters
The C voters, by truncating, make the would be reversers accept the Nash
equilibrium or suffer the consequences.
Mike
I said:
The least fortunate voter either rates 1 candidate 1 and N-1 candidates 0,
or rates N candidates 1 and rates N-1 candidatres 0.
I meant to say:
The least fortunate voter either rates 1 candidate 1 and N-1 candidates 0,
or rates N-1 candidates 1 and rates 1 candidate 0.
Mike Ossipoff
When discussing Chris's SFC, I said There can be no majority voting X
over Y. What I meant to say was that, in Pluralitly, if a majority vote X
over Y, then there can be no majority voting anyone over X.
Mike Ossipoff
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
Sorry, in the last third of the post I erroneously wrote A or B
instead of the obviously correct B or C...
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
I said Maybe from 0 to 1 it's an improper integral that evaluates to 1/e.
I meant:
Maybe, from 0 to R, it's an improper integral such that that when sit's
olved and added to the integral from R to 1, and when the result is set
equal to 0, and the resulting equation solved fo R, the result for
in the final few lines of my
replies to recent EM posts re apportionment
post, 24 should have been 1/24.
wds
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
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
In a recent posting, the 2nd time I said a/q -1, I meant b/q -1.
When I said that between 0 and 1 it's an improper integral, but when
evaluated it's 1/e, I meant that the answer for the rounding point is 1/e.
When the two integration results are added, their sum set eaual to zero, and
the
In the message that I just sent to EM, I referred to Ds/q. By that I mean
a state's seats minus what one seat per quota would give to it, that signed
difference divided by the state's quotas.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Your Hotmail address
I accidentally said that Hill has unbias. I meant to say that it has bias.
Mike Ossipoff
p.s. Right now is close to the anniversary of the date when Webster was
replaced by Hill, for apportioning the House.
_
Stay up-to-date with
Dear Election List,
The issue of whether or not a particular method of apportionment is
biased is rather complex it seems to me. Although I greatly respect
the work of Balinski and Young I do not find the discussion they have
about bias totally compelling. (Look at the diagram on page 72
Below is my previous post, corrected:
Warren,
Incidentlally, since you claim because you cannot explain the precise
meaning of a range vote
of 64 versus 65, therefore range voting is somehow horribel and
inexplicable...
and you like DMC... I ask explain to me the precise meaning of
`I
Sorry for the typo: I wrote
This will make it easier for voters to give full rankings instead of
ballot-voting.
but meant bullet-voting of course...
_
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
Argh. As usual, there were careless typos in my example. I wrote
30 AB
18 AC
16 BC
25 CB
BA 52-48
AC 48-41
CB 53-47
but I meant
30 AB
18 AC
11 B
16 BC
25 CB
BA 52-48
AC 48-41
BC 57-43
Hopefully that's correct now. My apologies for the confusion.
my best,
James
I'd said:
FHC calls that an advantage of Plurality.
I meant to say:
FHC calls that an advantage of Plurality over Approval and CR.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security.
Here's what I meant to say:
Preference Majority Criterion (PMC):
A method fails PMC if it's possible to contrive a configuration of
candidates, voters, and voter-preferences such that a set of voters
consisting of more than half of the voters prefer X to each of the other
candidates, and it
I've just realized that in the reply to James that I just posted, I probably
put the wrong day of the month. It should have said James, 23 April, '05,
0220 GMT.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus
I'd said:
_Fair_ can be found in progressive bookstores in many cities.
I meant:
_Extra!_ can be found in progressive bookstores in many cities.
By the way, FAIR stands for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Express
I'd said:
Record the number of people who voted for j over i. Call that the [put
j's name here] votes
against number for i.
Let's change that to:
Record the number of people who ranked j over i. Call that [put i's name
here]'s votes-against
number labeled with [put j's name here].
Mike
I'd said:
So no, offensive order-reversal in wv is not a new problem.
I meant:
So no, the problem that could result from offensive order-reversal in wv is
not a new problem, but is only the old problem, much reduced.
Mike Ossipoff
_
James replying to Mike...
So no, the problem that could result from offensive order-reversal in wv
is
not a new problem, but is only the old problem, much reduced.
Going from non-burying vulnerable methods (like plurality, runoffs or
IRV) to burying-vulnerable methods (like Condorcet,
I said that 30% vote for X, 30% vote for Z, and 60% vote for Y.
I meant that 40% vote for Y.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
I said:
For those rings, you're increasing your summed distance to candidates on the
rings. That's true of other rings on the sphere about those points, and it's
true for other spherical shells about P.
Instead of ...candidates on the rings., I meant ...voters on the rings.
Mike Ossipoff
I said:
It's a simple matter of BeatpathWinner choosing {A,lD} as its winner-set.
BeatpathWinner's winner-set is {A,B}, and SSD's winnner-set is {D}.
I meant, instead:
It's a simple matter of BeatpathWinner choosing {A,D} as its winner set.
BeatpathWinner's winner-set is {A,D}, and SSD's
I said:
Dropping the strongest
defeat that's in a cycle can give diffrerent results from dropping the
weakest
defeat among the members of the current Schwartz set.
I comment:
I meant: Dropping the _weakest_ defeat that's in a cycle...
Mike Ossipoff
I said:
when voters vote in their best interest based on information from previous
elections, converges to the Smith set
[endquote]
I meant sincere Smith set. It was a typo, and I´m immediately correcting it.
That typo probably resulted from the confused meanings in the posting on
which I was
In my just-posted sincerity definition, substitute falsify for reverse.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet
access.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Forest Simmons wrote:
If there are n districts and N voters per district, then the number of
within district distances to average together would be
N*n*(n-1)/2 ,
Should read n*N*(N-1)/2 .
Forest
Election-methods mailing list - see
I said:
Ties are solved by having all the rankings give an Approval vote to each of
their ranked candidates.
That should say ...to each of their ranked candidates who are in the tie.
So it should say:
Ties are solved by having all the rankings give an Approval vote to each of
their ranked
In an earlier message today, I said:
If it's true that the BeatpathWinner algorithm that I posted a few days ago
would find the strongest beatpath between each ordered pair of candidates if
the indices were re-arranged, then would someone post a proof of that? Or
the URL of a website that has a
30 matches
Mail list logo
