Original Message
Subject: [RangeVoting] Wikimedia adopts the Schulze method
On Jun 29, 2008, at 4:27 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
While Range *might* have made a difference, probably not. The problem
with Condorcet methods with many candidates is one of voter
ignorance.
Dear Dave Ketchum,
in 2007, the Wikimedia Foundation used approval
voting for the elections of its Board of Trustees.
Here is the election result:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Results/en
No candidate was approved by a majority.
Markus Schulze
Election-Methods
Didn't actually send this to the list.
Original post follows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry in advance, AIM tends to add lots of ? symbols for some reason.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In small groups:
A voter is chosen at random.
This voter picks another voter to
Markus Schulze Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 3:28 PM
in 2007, the Wikimedia Foundation used approval
voting for the elections of its Board of Trustees.
No candidate was approved by a majority.
Given that this was 3-member election, is that any surprise? Surely the
surprise in such an
Dear James Gilmour,
in 2007, the Wikimedia Foundation used approval
voting for the elections of its Board of Trustees.
Here is the election result:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Results/en
No candidate was approved by a majority.
Given that this was 3-member
Good Afternoon, Forest
I've thought about your proposal since I first read it the other day.
I'm unclear about the human dynamics. The proposal, as later adjusted,
seems to have a negative tinge; it relies on eliminating people judged
undesirable rather than elevating those judged desirable.
On Jun 30, 2008, at 22:56 , Fred Gohlke wrote:
re: I see also some benefits in being bound by manifesto and
indebtedness and having related 'cliques' already before the
election.
Then you must be happy with the status quo and all the deceit,
obfuscation and corruption that dominate our
On Jun 30, 2008, at 12:58 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
I've thought about your proposal since I first read it the other
day. I'm unclear about the human dynamics. The proposal, as later
adjusted, seems to have a negative tinge; it relies on eliminating
people judged undesirable rather than
Dear James Gilmour,
It is interesting to see the large numbers of ballots
with many equal rankings, often but not always, one
candidate versus the rest. And yet the candidates
within the equal rankings are given in specific
orders. If no preference among them, what does the
order signify
On Jun 30, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Condorcet provides for ranked approval for more than one candidate.
This
DOES NOT justify trying to get voters to rank more than they approve
of.
And, while I write above for voters to learn about other candidates,
I do
not see demanding
10 matches
Mail list logo
