Re: [Election-Methods] A Better Version of IRV?

2008-07-13 Thread Kristofer Munsterhjelm
I don't see how IRV's failure to elect the Condorcet candidate is necessarily linked to its "non-monotonicity". There are monotonic (meets mono-raise) methods that fail Condorcet, and some Condorcet methods that fail mono-raise. (For information: I think Bucklin would be an example of the forme

Re: [Election-Methods] [EM] Die Toss Version of FAWRB

2008-07-13 Thread Jobst Heitzig
Dear Forest, I'm sorry again for answering so late - I always find time to read your messages and even think some time about them but not for answering... What occupies me most at this moment with your idea of using some "degree of cooperation" to determine the weights in a mix of a random b

Re: [Election-Methods] A Better Version of IRV?

2008-07-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 02:01 AM 7/13/2008, Chris Benham wrote: Forest, "The voter ranks all she wants to and the remaining candidates are ranked (later, i.e. below) by the voter's favorite or perhaps, as Steve Eppley has suggested, by the voter's specified public ranking. Since IRV satisfies LNH, what's the harm

Re: [Election-Methods] "Town E-meetings" for encouraging group intelligence and working toward consensus

2008-07-13 Thread Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
At 07:26 PM 7/12/2008, Terry Bouricius wrote: By raising one-sided objections to any particular reform proposal that is being seriously considered, the net effect is most likely to be to shore up the status quo, rather than to advance one's favored method. If election method experts put their uni

Re: [Election-Methods] A Better Version of IRV?

2008-07-13 Thread Dave Ketchum
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:37:28 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 02:01 AM 7/13/2008, Chris Benham wrote: Forest, "The voter ranks all she wants to and the remaining candidates are ranked (later, i.e. below) by the voter's favorite or perhaps, as Steve Eppley has suggested, by the voter's spec