On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:14:34 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
So you're saying that computers are better than specialized machines?
I'm not sure that's what you say (rather than that machines are
better than paper ballots), but I'll assume that.
Your specialized machi
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 1:14 , Raph Frank wrote:
>
>> In Ireland, it is rare that parties run more than 2+ candidates in a given
>> constituency and if then, only the 2 main parties.
>
> Sounds quite limiting from the point of view of
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 20:23 , James Gilmour wrote:
>
>>> I think a system that requires people to rank 10-20+
>>> candidates is going to run into trouble.
>>
>> I don't see why there should be such large numbers of candidates in real
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also an STV election that has tens of candidates but allows also shorter
> votes may have problems.
>
> The favourite party of the voter could have 20 candidates. Let's say that
> they are all about equally strong. Based on the siz
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:00 , James Gilmour wrote:
>
>> I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with "lists".
>
> Lists are indeed rather clumsy and maybe simplifying (trees would be more
> expressive though :-).
Yeah,
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rules for registering candidates may be different in different countries and
> may also be method independent in many cases. Parties may often have a
> formal role, but I don't know what the typical rules in STV-PR countries
> are.
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:10 , Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
The extreme would be a voting system where people just say how much
they agree with an opinion, for all relevant opinions, and then the
system picks the maximally representative assembly. Such a method
is not desirable, I think, beca
On Aug 18, 2008, at 1:14 , Raph Frank wrote:
In Ireland, it is rare that parties run more than 2+ candidates in
a given
constituency and if then, only the 2 main parties.
Sounds quite limiting from the point of view of allowing the voters
to decide also which persons will be elected, not o
On Aug 19, 2008, at 20:11 , Michael Allan wrote:
Juho wrote, in thread PR favoring racialminorities:
... I was also thinking about trees that offer more detailed
grouping of the candidates.
I just spoke with someone at Texas Tech. We were discussing how
cascade voting might be used to elect
There is a difference between methods where only voters can modify
their votes at any time and methods where the candidate that got some
votes can redirect these votes. The latter case may cause larger and
faster changes. And such changes may lead to reactions also among
those voters that g
On Aug 18, 2008, at 20:23 , James Gilmour wrote:
I think a system that requires people to rank 10-20+
candidates is going to run into trouble.
I don't see why there should be such large numbers of candidates in
real public elections with modestly sized electoral districts.
In the last parl
On Aug 18, 2008, at 19:44 , James Gilmour wrote:
Jonathan Lundell > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:09 PM
It's also easier to explain party lists than STV. Well, at least the
simpler variations; the more complicated MMD/top-up schemes
are pretty arcane.
Yes, maybe for the simpler party list
On Aug 18, 2008, at 18:50 , Raph Frank wrote:
I think a system that requires people to rank 10-20+
candidates is going to run into trouble.
A system that _requires_ people to rank tens of candidates is in
trouble. Also an STV election that has tens of candidates but allows
also shorter vot
On Aug 18, 2008, at 12:00 , James Gilmour wrote:
I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with "lists".
Lists are indeed rather clumsy and maybe simplifying (trees would be
more expressive though :-).
If looking for some rationale behind lists one could say that some
grouping
Sorry for some delay is replying.
(And thanks to all for the links. Those pages seem to include plenty
of good information. I may comment them later when I understand more.)
On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:49 , James Gilmour wrote:
Juho > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 6:08 AM
To: Election Methods
I had a similar though previously.
It was based on a legislature rather than individual voters.
I called it 'consumable votes'.
Here is one example, though there was a fair few versions.
http://listas.apesol.org/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2006-March/017903.html
I had though about
On 8/19/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Juho wrote, in thread PR favoring racialminorities:
> >
> > ... I was also thinking about trees that offer more detailed
> > grouping of the candidates.
>
> I just spoke with someone at Texas Tech. We were discussing how
> cascade voting
17 matches
Mail list logo
