Hi Juho,
I have to trim this due to being short on time.
--- En date de : Mar 14.6.11, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk a écrit :
If
the answer is no or almost never, and I'm the
only
nutty voter that wants
to vote ACB, lose nothing, maybe gain,
with
everyone else voting
sincerely,
Hi Juho,
--- En date de : Mar 14.6.11, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk a écrit :
The explanation may not be not much more
complex. It
is the strategy where
I say MinMax is more complicated and, more
importantly, hard to grasp.
I recommend sincere voting. Teaching multiple
Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Kristofer,
--- En date de : Lun 13.6.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com a
écrit :
If you want something that deters burial strategy, how
about what I called FPC? Each candidate's penalty is equal
to the number of first-place votes for those who beat him
Hi Jameson,
--- En date de : Mar 14.6.11, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com a écrit :
[start quote]
Of course, this causes favorite betrayal strategy, because you may
care more about giving a penalty than about helping your honest
favorite. And this strategy is obvious enough that I think
Hi Kristofer,
--- En date de : Mer 15.6.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com a
écrit :
I guess that anything else that does something similar
would have a
similar advantage.
FPC has some problems, though, as Jameson Quinn pointed
out. It is possible to reduce the compromise
Edit:
--- En date de : Mer 15.6.11, Kevin Venzke step...@yahoo.fr a écrit :
I am not sure I am able to follow this. In the first
paragraph, if Y
is the CW, you can't have an XYZX cycle created
by X voters.
I just realized you're not talking about a cycle but a score order.
Also am I
On 15.6.2011, at 14.23, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Juho,
I have to trim this due to being short on time.
Thanks, compact opinions are always a good approach.
In margins (and maybe in other variants too) ties
should
not carry any other additional meaning but that
the voter
didn't support XY
Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Kristofer,
--- En date de : Mer 15.6.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com a
écrit :
I guess that anything else that does something similar
would have a
similar advantage.
FPC has some problems, though, as Jameson Quinn pointed
out. It is possible to reduce
If we measure defeat strength of A over B, primarily by whether or not A covers
B, and secondarily by
the number of winning votes, we get new versions of Ranked Pairs, River, and
Beatpath. These new
versions retain all of the best properties of their winning votes versions,
while always
So far SODA seems to be the best use of one bit ballots, i.e. the Plurality
style ballots which have just
one bubble to the right of each name.
What is the best way to use two bit ballots, i.e. ballots that have two bubbles
to the right of each name?
Election-Methods mailing list - see
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
If we measure defeat strength of A over B, primarily by whether or not A covers B, and secondarily by
the number of winning votes, we get new versions of Ranked Pairs, River, and Beatpath. These new
versions retain all of the best properties of their winning votes
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
So far SODA seems to be the best use of one bit ballots, i.e. the Plurality style ballots which have just
one bubble to the right of each name.
What is the best way to use two bit ballots, i.e. ballots that have two bubbles
to the right of each name?
Two-bit ballots
- Original Message -
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [EM] Covering , Ranked Pairs, Beatpath, and River
To: fsimm...@pcc.edu
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
If we measure defeat strength of A over B,
- Original Message -
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: [EM] Best use of two bit ballots?
To: fsimm...@pcc.edu
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
So far SODA seems to be the best use of one bit ballots,
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Which interpretation would be least confusing for the voter?
Suppose, for example we have
[name] (1) (2)
What is the most natural interpretation for the voter that doesn't read the
instructions?
Either a Range ballot where greatest circle filled in counts (so
On Jun 15, 2011, at 5:12 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: [EM] Best use of two bit ballots?
To: fsimm...@pcc.edu
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
So far
DYN uses two bits, for different things. Filling in both approve and do
not delegate beside a given candidate is synonymous with approve, so it's
not actually a full two bits, but it's still a pretty good system. Still, I
have to say, I think that SODA beats it for simplicity, and if simplicity is
Hi Kristofer,
Quick one:
--- En date de : Mer 15.6.11, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_el...@lavabit.com a
écrit :
I haven't tested FPC (since my reimplementation of JGA's
strategy ideas was done before I moved to a more modular
design for Quadelect), but as far as I recall, the really
standout
On Jun 15, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 15.6.2011, at 14.46, Kevin Venzke wrote:
It's better if explaining the method's
rules is enough (or close) to understand the strategy.
...
No, I am (almost) saying that if you have to explain the strategy
separately then that's bad. I think
19 matches
Mail list logo
