On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 00:51 +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>
>
> Matt--
>
> You're a bit unfair to rank methods. You said that it's difficult to
> figure out the right strategy.
Hmmm... I'm not sure I said that it is difficult to figure out the right
strategy. One thing that I did say was that
Hi Matt,
Writing very quickly, apologies in advance.
--- En date de : Dim 16.10.11, matt welland a écrit :
> > Approval's weakness is that it has to decide where the
> main contest is
> > prior to the vote. If there are few good options (i.e.
> any pair of
> > frontrunners leaves a large percent
Hi Juho,
Firing off quick responses, sorry:
--- En date de : Lun 17.10.11, Juho Laatu a écrit :
I think that your method is similar to my single contest method. I believe you
determine
the critical pair of candidates in exactly the same way. However, while my
method just
has an i
Quoting Mike Ossipoff: 'to me, our current public political elections
don't require any strategy decisions, other than "vote for acceptable
candidates and don't vote for the entirely unacceptable ones."'
In the discussions of Approval and ranking, below, Mke's thought
applies to both. In
I'd like to say a few more things about the methods, correcting at least one
error of mine, and then
I'd like to briefly reply to a few statements in posts in the "Methods" thread.
First, my comments:
When I said that MDDA wasn't looking as good as PC, that was before I
re-found-out that
Juho Laatu wrote:
> Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws [in the thesis], but
> what we need, I think, is a common terminology. There is a paradox
> here, and agreed terms should be available to manage this situation,
> e.g. to separate concepts "vote has influence" and "[v]ote has no
> infl
> 2011/10/18 Andy Jennings wrote:
>
> So the declaration is all done, right? Ready to send out to
> everyone we think might be interested?
I think we should freeze the Declaration wording as it is now.
Of course if there is any further wording refinement that anyone(!)
might want made,
matt welland wrote:
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 20:42 +0200, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
matt welland wrote:
Again, I think it is very, very important to note that the ranked
systems actually lose or hide information relative to approval in both
these cases.
In what manner does a ranked method hide
I am still contacting high profile people who we'd like to sign it.
Personally, I'd avoid calling it "done" quite yet so that we can make minor
changes if these people request it. But if people feel otherwise, I'd be
willing to freeze it in its current state.
Here's the status of my efforts
-
So the declaration is all done, right? Ready to send out to everyone we
think might be interested?
I have a bunch of people I want to notify, but for some reason I don't feel
like sending them to either the Google Doc or to Richard's page (
http://www.votefair.org/declaration.html). Niether seem
On 7/22/64 2:59 PM, matt welland wrote:
A ranked system cannot give the feedback that all the candidates are
disliked (e.g. all candidates get less than 50% approval). It also
cannot feedback that all the candidates are essentially equivalent (all
have very high approval)
Ironically by tryi
On 18.10.2011, at 5.57, Michael Allan wrote:
> Hi Juho,
>
> Thanks for giving me a chance to explain. It's a difficult thesis to
> summarize. Nobody has admitted to being convinced by it yet. At the
> same time, no serious flaws have been found.
Yes, also I have not found any actual flaws, bu
12 matches
Mail list logo
