Hallo,
in October 2009, the Pirate Party of Sweden
adopted the Schulze method. See e.g.:
http://forum.piratpartiet.se/FindPost174988.aspx
http://forum.piratpartiet.se/FindPost176567.aspx
http://forum.piratpartiet.se/FindPost191479.aspx
The Schulze method is used in the internal
elections (14 Dec
plurality leader in the initial tally ended up losing
weak Condorcet compromise in third place
if Burlington had used Condorcet rules ... there would be even more
vociferous calls for repeal
These are all semi-valid concerns in a country that is so used to
plurality winners and singl
On Jan 6, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
> Actually, the opposition to IRV in Burlington is predominantly focused on
> the complaint that the plurality leader in the initial tally ended up
> losing in the runoff tally.
That's stupid enough to get me a bit angry.
They see a problem w
I'm afraid the method is not monotone: If a member of S moves up on the
ordinal ballots, it is true this
move will increase her chances of winning if L(S) is chosen over A, but it
might make it so that L(S) is
not chosen over A.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
Is it a pure condorcet ordering, or are they adding any PR elements to the list?
Using google translate (which did a pretty good job), on those
threads, they say it is decided
"According to a variant of the Condorcet / Single-Transferable-Vote
named Schultz method. Full källkod kommer att publice
Raph Frank wrote:
Is it a pure condorcet ordering, or are they adding any PR elements to the list?
Using google translate (which did a pretty good job), on those
threads, they say it is decided
"According to a variant of the Condorcet / Single-Transferable-Vote
named Schultz method. Full källko
Hallo,
the Schulze ranking will be used as defined
in the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method
I agree that it would have been better if
a proportional ordering method had been used.
Markus Schulze
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
They also said:
> Condorcet-Schultze med 30% kvotering
= Condorcet-Schultze with 30% quotas
I just wonder if that adds something to the basic Schulze method.
Juho
On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Hallo,
the Schulze ranking will be used as defined
in the Wikipedia article
Juho wrote:
They also said:
> Condorcet-Schultze med 30% kvotering
= Condorcet-Schultze with 30% quotas
I just wonder if that adds something to the basic Schulze method.
That means that 30% of the people on the list has to have some property.
I'm not sure what that property is, but I guess
Nice to know someone has some common sense to scrap IRV voting. I
found out that NYC tried IRV in the 1930s and scrapped it too. Also
Burlington VT and Aspen CO have ongoing efforts to scrap it and
several other locations recently made the wise decision to scrap
possibly the only alternative votin
On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
Nice to know someone has some common sense to scrap IRV voting. I
found out that NYC tried IRV in the 1930s and scrapped it too. Also
Burlington VT and Aspen CO have ongoing efforts to scrap it
*some* people in Burlington VT. don't assume (until
I've answered that question on this list before and Abd ul also answered it.
There are *many* good alternative voting methods that do solve the
spoiler problem, are monotonic, and elect majority winners and are
precinct summable. I don't know of any alternative voting methods as
bad as IRV/STV (al
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:28 PM, robert bristow-johnson
wrote:
>
> On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
>
>> I've answered that question on this list before and Abd ul also answered
>> it.
>>
>> There are *many* good alternative voting methods that do solve the
>> spoiler problem, are mono
At 07:55 PM 1/7/2010, Kathy Dopp wrote:
I've answered that question on this list before and Abd ul also answered it.
There are *many* good alternative voting methods that do solve the
spoiler problem, are monotonic, and elect majority winners and are
precinct summable. I don't know of any altern
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:
Abd ul, Just a few comments and a correction re. Burlington.
>>
> (Single Transferable Vote is considerably better when used for multiwinner
> elections, though there are better methods still, for sure. True multiwinner
> STV has been re
On Jan 7, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:28 PM, robert bristow-johnson
wrote:
On Jan 7, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
I've answered that question on this list before and Abd ul also
answered
it.
There are *many* good alternative voting methods that do
16 matches
Mail list logo
