I do like the executive summary. Maybe it's a little too long?
I think we could do without the sentence "Some good Condorcet methods
are:..."
I do think the PR section could be significantly shortened.
I made a few changes. Feel free to review, roll back, and discuss if you
think I have erred.
On 9/7/2011 2:09 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:
> I still think the 12 page declaration (incl table of contents) needs an
> executive summary. The table of contents does not in my honest opinion
> give good enough information.
I agree that the declaration needs an executive summary. Here is what
I'v
On 9/7/2011 3:30 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Richard,
re: "Nothing in this statement should be interpreted to imply
that we believe that election-method reform is the only area
of existing political systems that currently needs reform.
In fact, most of us also support other reforms such as
broader ca
>Lundell:
> How does it keep me honest in that scenario? Presumably I'd vote 1-0-0;
> what's my motivation to do otherwise?
>
>Quinn:
> Because there's a small chance that your (first "honest" range) vote actually
> will decide between a lottery of some chance of A or C and a certainty of B.
Richard,
re: "Nothing in this statement should be interpreted to imply
that we believe that election-method reform is the only area
of existing political systems that currently needs reform.
In fact, most of us also support other reforms such as
broader campaign-finance-report
Here's a compactness measure I haven't seen proposed before:
Compose a district boundary out of line segments. The "thickness" of a line
segment is the closest distance of any voter to any point on that line
segment. Minimize the total of the length of segments divided by their
thickness.
It is,
Warren,
I am fairly certain that you made a logic error by conflating the
Roeck and Schwartzberg methods, which I believe are not equivalent.
http://rangevoting.org/TheorDistrict.html
In fact, the Schwartzberg method seems to me to be equivalent to the
class of compactness measures which use the
Claim: SODA is simpler for voters than any system I know of, and
specifically simpler for voters than approval.
Justification:
Simplest algorithm for voting Approval that is reasonably close to
strategically optimal:
Find the two frontrunners. Vote for one of them plus any candidate that's
bette
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Andy Jennings
wrote:
>> > The unit ball for method two has no corners or bulges (which all other
>> > values of p involve), so the strategy is not so obvious. But if Samuel
>> > Merrill is right, then in the zero information case, the optimum strategy
>> > for metho
On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
It is simply false to say SODA's simplicity (for either the voter, or
the counters)
"beats any other system I know of."
It is less simple than plain approval voting. Full stop.
If you persist in making ludicrous statements, then you will hurt your
credib
>
> > The unit ball for method two has no corners or bulges (which all other
> values of p involve), so the strategy is not so obvious. But if Samuel
> Merrill is right, then in the zero information case, the optimum strategy
> for method two is to vote appropriately normalized sincere utilities.
>
>FW Simmons:
Range voting is cardinal ratings with certain constraints on the
possible ratings, namely that they have to fall within a certain
interval or "range" of values, and usually limited to whole number
values.
Ignoring the whole number requirement, we could specify a constraint
for an equi
It is simply false to say SODA's simplicity (for either the voter, or
the counters)
"beats any other system I know of."
It is less simple than plain approval voting. Full stop.
If you persist in making ludicrous statements, then you will hurt your
credibility.
--
Warren D. Smith
Election-
Dear all,
the statement would probably benefit from executive summary of length 1/2 to
1 page.
Best regards
Peter Zbornik
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Toby Pereira wrote:
> I agree that it's too long. I've had another go at culling come parts of
> it, but if anyone objects, feel free to rev
I agree that it's too long. I've had another go at culling come parts of it,
but if anyone objects, feel free to revert some or all.
From: Warren Smith
To: electionscie...@googlegroups.com; election-methods
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011, 16:17
Subject: Re: [EM] [CES #3566] Re: Declaration
https://www.fixphillydistricts.com
They held another district-drawing contest. $500 prize.
While the winning plan(s) seem to improve over the old ones, they
don't strike me as
ultra-wonderful. It seems plausible splitline or Olson would have done
comparably or better.
I noticed they mentione
this "declaration" is suffering from exactly what everybody
most-complains about re the rangevoting.org website.
I.e. it tried to cover everything and got large. In fact, enormous.
That for a website is a flaw that is not necessarily an
insurmountable obstacle
since one can put short "summary" p
Noise, but possibly worth a response.
In writing about a Condorcet race the standard format seems to be A>X>Y.
For voting the ballot format seems to be to be able to assign rank
numbers to as many of the candidates as the voter chooses.
In reporting election results the n*n matrix has findab
18 matches
Mail list logo
