Good Morning, Duane Johnson
I plan to study your proposal but have not had time to do so. I expect
to have questions for you and will post them as soon as I've had time to
think about what you've written. That may not be for a week or so.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list -
At 04:42 PM 4/19/2010, Duane Johnson wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I am new to this forum, thanks to James Green-Armytage who sent me
the address. I am a software engineer in Chicago who also happens
to be interested in voting methods.
I'd like to propose a voting method that may be of interest
At 07:55 AM 4/20/2010, Raph Frank wrote:
Btw, you should look into the delegable proxy system. This is also
designed to allow effective communication without overloading the
voters.
Asset Voting was invented when Dodgson realized that most voters were
people busy with their lives. They were
At 01:30 AM 4/20/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Or other advanced method. What is often overlooked in the discussion
of voting methods, due to the emphasis on deterministic methods that
always find a winner with one ballot, is that runoff
On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
However, I strongly urge people who attempt to analyze the situation
and to propose reforms to:
1. Keep it simple. An extraordinarily powerful system for fully
proportional representation consisting of a seemingly-simple tweak on
Single
2010/4/21 Andrew Myers an...@cs.cornell.edu
On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
However, I strongly urge people who attempt to analyze the situation
and to propose reforms to:
1. Keep it simple. An extraordinarily powerful system for fully
proportional representation consisting
Dave Ketchum wrote 17 April 2010:
First, quoting Wikipedia:
A Condorcet method is any single-winner election method that meets
the Condorcet criterion, that is, which always selects the Condorcet
winner, the candidate who would beat each of the other candidates in
a run-off election, if
Somehow this thread forgot its primary address - sorry.
On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:04 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Dave, i think you meant to respond to the EM list, not?
i think you and i are on the same side, i just would not expect
adopting Preferential Voting (be it Condorcet or IRV or
The same logic applies also to the Condorcet criterion. We all
probably agree on what terms Condorcet criterion, Condorcet
method, Condorcet-complying method are intended to refer to. Term
Condorcet might refer to any of these or maybe to Marquis de
Condorcet (in the EM framework). If one
attachment was scrubbed...
URL: electorama.com/attachments/20100421/31bcc585/attachment.html
--
___
Election-Methods mailing list
Election-Methods@lists.electorama.com
http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods
Jameson,
Abd has made much of a proposal of Charles Dodgson tweaking STV by allowing
candidates to assign exhausted ballots...but that is NOT the system that
Dodgson's name is normally attached to. His name is attached to a Condorcet
method (but not knowing of Condorcet's prior invention)
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:30 AM 4/20/2010, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Or other advanced method. What is often overlooked in the discussion
of voting methods, due to the emphasis on deterministic methods that
I don't know if Juho is still cheering for MinMax as a public proposal. I used
to be against it because of its clone dependence, but now that I realize that
measuring defeat strength by AWP (Approval Weighted Pairwise) solves that
problem, I'm starting to warm up more to the idea.
MinMax
I still include minmax(margins) in the set of good Condorcet methods,
also for practical elections. AWP style defeat strength measuring is a
very interesting addition to the Condorcet family. It may be a bit
tedious to the voters but in principle very interesting as said. Also
variants of
This sounds quite interesting, Abd ul-Rahman. Where can I learn about
your FA/DP idea? Your discussion here is helpful, but I feel like I
am missing out the important prerequisite pieces in order to make
sense of it. (I know about delegable proxy, but haven't heard about
FA/DP
There is no rush, of course. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Thanks,
Duane Johnson
On Apr 21, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Duane Johnson
I plan to study your proposal but have not had time to do so. I
expect to have questions for you and will post them as
On Apr 20, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Duane Johnson duane.john...@gmail.com
wrote:
The voting process would go like this:
1. (By some process outside the scope of this proposal), it is
determined
that an issue needs to be voted on
This could
At 05:23 PM 4/21/2010, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Abd has made much of a proposal of Charles Dodgson tweaking STV by
allowing candidates to assign exhausted ballots...but that is NOT
the system that Dodgson's name is normally attached to. His name is
attached to a Condorcet method (but not knowing
On Apr 21, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Somehow this thread forgot its primary address - sorry.
On Apr 21, 2010, at 11:04 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Dave, i think you meant to respond to the EM list, not?
i think you and i are on the same side, i just would not expect
19 matches
Mail list logo
