In "real elections" the problem is that the Powers That Be chose to not
allow me to vote at all, despite the fact I'm a registered voter. So
whatever method you propose or support I consider irrelevant, until you sort
out the problems on the collection side.
-Original Message-
From: elect
--- On Fri, 2/1/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Reverse Condorcet: If the election is (n-1, n) and
> there's a Condorcet loser, all but the Condorcet loser
> should be elected.
Example:
- 10 Republican candidates, one Democrat candidate
- 55% support to Republicans
- 45% support to Democrats
Who would have thought such a simple example and such a direct question could
provoke so much obfuscation and prevarication.
References to IRV, FairVote and Santa Clara are all completely irrelevant.
So let's try again, with little bit of additional information that was (more or
less) implied fi
On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Elections aren't merely picking some ideal best winner in a bad
situation, they are seeking, if a majority is sought, one who will
be accepted, *at least*, by most voters.
That may well be a desideratum, but it's not the case in real
At 03:53 PM 1/2/2009, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
FWIW, in California there's no way to write in NOTA and have it counted.
Depends on the election and perhaps on local rules. Pick the absolute
best candidate *including write-ins" and, if necessary, write that
name in. A write-in is "None of the a
At 02:51 PM 1/2/2009, Paul Kislanko wrote:
I think the cited text provides an important distinction we need to use on
EM.
In theory, we want to discuss election methods based upon how they collect
and count ballots, which is "analytic" in some sense. As soon as you
introduce real candidates and
I don't believe RRs or practical implementations thereof define percentages
this way.
For instance, the US Senate rules call for 60 votes, not 60% of the Senators
who vote, in their rules. Likewise by leaving the state, for a time Texas
Democrats delayed the (ridiculous) re-districting plan the Re
At 01:23 PM 1/2/2009, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Dave makes a good point, that I may have emulated Abd in verbosity in
making my point. Here it is in a nutshell:
Since the two-round runoff election system widely used in the U.S. that
involves counting votes in two rounds is said to always elect a "m
Abd,
I think you miss-understood James Gilmour's question. He was asking about
an exhaustive ballot election without any ranked-choice ballots. In his
scenario 100 voters vote in the first round and 92 vote in the second
round. Does the final round winner with 47 votes win with "a majority?"
R
On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:09 PM 1/2/2009, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
So sure, IRV elects "majority winners" in one particular operation
sense of the term. Even if there's a first-round absolute majority,
we're faced with the problem of agenda manipulation. To t
At 01:09 PM 1/2/2009, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
So sure, IRV elects "majority winners" in one particular operation
sense of the term. Even if there's a first-round absolute majority,
we're faced with the problem of agenda manipulation. To take another
US presidential election, in 1992 I might have
At 06:34 AM 1/2/2009, James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:07 AM
> Terry and Abd look set to duel forever.
>
> Conduct of elections is a serious topic, but both of them
> offer too many words without usefully covering the topic.
So let's try a small number of num
> From: "Terry Bouricius"
> Subject: Re: [EM] Does IRV elect "majority winners?"
> Since the two-round runoff election system widely used in the U.S. that
> involves counting votes in two rounds is said to always elect a "majority
> winner," meaning a majority of votes from those voters who cho
At 01:06 AM 1/2/2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Terry and Abd look set to duel forever.
It could look that way. Terrill Bouricius is one of the major players
with FairVote, he has a lot invested there, so to speak. He finally
said that he wouldn't, personally, make the majority claims that
others
I think the cited text provides an important distinction we need to use on
EM.
In theory, we want to discuss election methods based upon how they collect
and count ballots, which is "analytic" in some sense. As soon as you
introduce real candidates and party politics (i.e. "strategies") we get a
Not to muddy an already muddied water, but if I define "majority" to be
50%+1 of ELIGIBLE VOTERS no method can claim to select a majority winner
unless there's a large turnout in every round (for systems that include more
than one round of VOTING.)
-Original Message-
From: election-method
Dave makes a good point, that I may have emulated Abd in verbosity in
making my point. Here it is in a nutshell:
Since the two-round runoff election system widely used in the U.S. that
involves counting votes in two rounds is said to always elect a "majority
winner," meaning a majority of votes fr
On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:
This thread is about the meaning of the
expression "a majority of the votes".
I presented the simple scenario above to see
what views there might be about the meaning of
"a majority of the votes" in that specific
situation.
This thread is rathe
Dear James Gilmour,
you wrote (2 Jan 2009):
> So let's try a small number of numbers.
>
> At a meeting we need to elect one office-bearer
> (single-office, single-winner). There are four
> candidates and we decide to use the exhaustive
> ballot (bottom elimination, one at a time) with
> the requ
> > James Gilmour wrote (2 Jan 2009):
> > So let's try a small number of numbers.
> >
> > At a meeting we need to elect one office-bearer (single-office,
> > single-winner). There are four candidates and we decide to use the
> > exhaustive ballot (bottom elimination, one at a time) with
> > the
Dear James Gilmour,
you wrote (2 Jan 2009):
> So let's try a small number of numbers.
>
> At a meeting we need to elect one office-bearer
> (single-office, single-winner). There are four
> candidates and we decide to use the exhaustive
> ballot (bottom elimination, one at a time) with
> the requ
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:07 AM
> Terry and Abd look set to duel forever.
>
> Conduct of elections is a serious topic, but both of them
> offer too many words without usefully covering the topic.
So let's try a small number of numbers.
At a meeting we need to elect one of
One way of making multiwinner elections proportional is to have the
method pass certain criteria. Most obvious of these are Droop
proportionality, which is the multiwinner analog to mutual majority.
However, such criteria can only say what the method should do, in
certain cases, not what it doe
23 matches
Mail list logo