At 02:14 AM 1/13/2010, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
For instance in Aspen CO's most recent
IRV election, if 75 *fewer* voters had voted for one candidate that
candidate would have won.
that's a pathology (and sounds like a worse one than Burlington VT in
2009). so let's get rid of it. but *
Ok, there are multiple topics.
Any voter can want secrecy and, if so, should have that protection so
that the voter can vote as preferred without risking problems with
enemies.
You write often about a different class of voters who do not want such
secrecy. While not convinced of the valu
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:55 PM,
wrote:
> Send Election-Methods mailing list submissions to
> election-meth...@lists.electorama.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
> or, via
At 07:10 PM 1/11/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
The possible excitement tangles with the secrecy laws - reporting in a
manner that identifies how ANY ONE voter voted needs preventing
(needed protection of voters).
There is a problem with ranked ballots and true write-in votes: a
voter may identify
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
> 1. A rank choice ballot method:
>
> Any number of candidates may be running for office and any number
> allowed to be ranked on the ballot.
>
> Voter ranks one candidate vote =1
>
> Voter ranks two candidates, denominator is 1+2 = 3
> votes are wo
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:02 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Juho wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:14 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> it s
For those who need a system for substituting for a top-two runoff
election, I devised two fair methods to suggest to her that do not
have all the flaws of IRV/STV. (They both may've been devised by
others before me. My goal was to create a fair method without
IRV/STV's flaws which solve the problem
On Jan 13, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Juho wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:14 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
it still is a curiosity to me how, historically, some leaders
and proponents of electio
On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Juho wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:14 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>>> it still is a curiosity to me how, historically, some leaders and
>>> proponents of election reform thunked up the idea to have a ranke
On Jan 13, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Juho wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:14 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
it still is a curiosity to me how, historically, some leaders and
proponents of election reform thunked up the idea to have a ranked-
order ballot and then took that good idea and married it to
At 01:19 PM 1/11/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Plurality does that only when you vote for one who has a possibility
of winning. Sometimes doing that prevents voting for the one you
prefer but expect to lose.
There is an aspect of this which is often overlooked, amidst
assumptions about what voter
At 09:30 AM 1/13/2010, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Juho,
That was a good summary of IRV and Condorcet dynamics, and how their
different weaknesses might be perceived by a citizenry. I would like to
add one more to your list. Different voting systems provide different
incentives for candidate behavio
Juho,
That was a good summary of IRV and Condorcet dynamics, and how their
different weaknesses might be perceived by a citizenry. I would like to
add one more to your list. Different voting systems provide different
incentives for candidate behavior and campaigns and thus voter
information.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 9:14 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
it still is a curiosity to me how, historically, some leaders and
proponents of election reform thunked up the idea to have a ranked-
order ballot and then took that good idea and married it to the IRV
protocol. with the 200 year ol
14 matches
Mail list logo
