Hi!
I am sorry for igniting such a flamewar.
1. information content
I propose that this topic should be discussed only after understanding
Shannon's information theory.
A good introductory material is on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
If we consider all variations of
Hi,
--- En date de : Dim 7.6.09, Árpád Magosányi mag...@rabic.org a écrit :
Shulze prefers the candidate which beatpath is weak (as far
I can remember Schulze's description). Which means
something like it is the least unacceptable candidate. I
have the feeling that this is connected with
Dear Árpád Magosányi,
here are the proposed statutory rules for the
Schulze method:
http://m-schulze.webhop.net/propstat.pdf
If I understand you correctly, then you want
to define the Schulze method in an axiomatic
manner in your proposal. I don't think that
this is a good idea.
Markus Schulze
Hi!
Sorry for top posting, But I believe I have found something nearing a
suitable simple-word definition for Schulze. As this is what I desperately
need, I offer it for scrutiny here:
- The electors rank the candidates according to their preferences.
- If there is a group of candidates all
I understand quite well Warren's point that for 2 and 3-candidate
races, and with full ranking required, and equal ranking not allowed,
then Approval (with the silly votes excluded) and ranked ballots can
be encoded in the same number of bits. And yes, there is certainly an
algorithm for turning a
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Árpád Magosányi mag...@rabic.org wrote:
- The electors rank the candidates according to their preferences.
- If there is a group of candidates all preferred over all candidates
outside the group, then ignoring the candidates outside the group should not
To me all this sounds still a bit too
complex for the referendum. I'd drop
out all the criteria, Smith set etc.
since the voters will not understand.
There is also the risk that experts
and opponents of the reform will
sabotage the referendum by digging
into the details (and thereby
proving to
It matters what is said, not whether speaking in different languages
affects whether different information can be contained in the same
size statement.
Paul is stating, correctly, that reading a ballot that only approves
{B C} provides no information as to the voter's desires being BC,
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Juho Laatujuho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
It could be thus enough to say:
- The electors rank the candidates
according to their preferences.
- If some candidate is preferred over
all other candidates then that
candidate shall be elected.
I think that Smith
Dear Raph,
Schulze and ranked pairs are the only methods that meet clone
independence and the condorcet rule.
Nope. River, too, of course, meets all three criteria...
Does ranked pairs fail the Smith criterion?
I would change B to If there is a group of candidates all preferred
over
Hallo,
here is another short, but complete
definition of the Schulze method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MarkusSchulze/Schulze_method_(simple_version)
*
- tends to produce winners with weak
worst pairwise defeats
I usually define this desideratum using
MinMax scores for sets
This is going crazy, but I cannot now resist.
On Jun 7, 2009, at 1:45 AM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Let's go back to the original post. Mr Smith called me an idiot for
pointing
out that his claim that approval ballots contain as much information
as
ranked ballots or range ballots do.
This
Hallo,
here is another paper that confirms
the observation, that the Schulze
winner is almost always identical to
the MinMax winner:
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/10161/1278/1/Wright_Barry.pdf
See pages 67-70.
In the 4-candidate case, the Schulze
winner and the MinMax winner
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Juho Laatujuho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
My thinking was that if the question on the
referendum excludes IRV, then the final outcome
is anyway likely to be Schulze (and the
unlikely event of choosing some other one of
the good Condorcet methods would not be a big
Dave,
--- En date de : Dim 7.6.09, Dave Ketchum da...@clarityconnect.com a écrit :
It matters what is said, not whether
speaking in different languages affects whether different
information can be contained in the same size statement.
Paul is stating, correctly, that reading a ballot that
The Schulze-beatpaths page Arpad was probably thinking of was
http://rangevoting.org/SchulzeExplan.html
The information thing now is summarized here
http://rangevoting.org/PuzzInfo1.html
which will be a future puzzle...
--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org -- add your endorsement (by
2009/6/7 Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Árpád Magosányi mag...@rabic.org wrote:
- The electors rank the candidates according to their preferences.
- If there is a group of candidates all preferred over all candidates
outside the group, then ignoring the
17 matches
Mail list logo
