[EM] Electorama/wiki

How do we save Edits on the electowiki? I can't see changes I made to the Proportional Representation page.. On 2011-11-18 00:18, Jameson Quinn wrote: I agree with Chris. But mostly, I'm writing to say that I would really like someone to fill in: http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/MDDTR ht

[EM] David Wetzel, re:

David: MO:1. Proportional Representation is obsolete, now that we have technology to easily implement Proxy Direct Democracy. (I discussed Proxy DD in a fairly recent post). You said: dlw: I will look into it if you ask me kindly to do so and provide me a link to a good summary of it. [endquot

Re: [EM] Kevin's other posting on votes-only criteria vs preference criteria.

Kevin: You said: In practice [preference-mentioning criteria] usually have to be translated into votes-only criteria in order to figure out how to use or test them. [endquote] So what? Regardless of your procedure for applying the criteria, my criteria apply to all methods. Votes-only criter

[EM] Re to KM wrt 3 seat Largest Remainder Hare andLoring Ensemble Rule.

On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm < km_el...@lavabit.com> wrote: > David L Wetzell wrote: > >> I blogged about this at my blog a while back in response to the args >> given by the Electoral Reform Society of the UK against ordered party list >> forms of PR. http://anewkindof

[EM] Re to Mike O wrt 3 seat LR Hare.

MO:1. Proportional Representation is obsolete, now that we have technology to easily implement Proxy Direct Democracy. (I discussed Proxy DD in a fairly recent post). dlw: I will look into it if you ask me kindly to do so and provide me a link to a good summary of it. MO: 2. Largest Remainder, w

[EM] Kevin: Votes-only criteria vs preference criteria

Kevin: You wrote: You say it is inelegant to specify assumptions about methods to which criteria apply. [endquote] Yes. You continue: But your alternative is criteria that have to discuss not just sincere preferences but also the degree to which voting may be insincere. [endquote] Some

[EM] An ABE solution.

Hi Forest-- Thanks for answering my question about MTA vs MCA. Your argument on that question is convincing, and answers my question about the strategy difference between those two methods. Certainly, electing C in the ABE avoids the ABE problem. I'd been hoping that the election of C can be

Re: [EM] Re : Votes-only criteria vs preference criteria. IRV squeeze-effect. Divulge IRV election specifics?

Jameson/Mike,   De : Jameson Quinn >>>À : Kevin Venzke >>>Cc : em >>>Envoyé le : Jeudi 17 Novembre 2011 12h48 >>>Objet : Re: [EM] Re : Votes-only criteria vs preference criteria. IRV >>>squeeze-effect. Divulge IRV election specifics? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>2011/11/17 Kevin Venzke >>>..In pract

[EM] Largest-Remainder doesn't favor small parties, but isn't very proportional either. PR is obsolete now that Proxy DD is available.

1. Proportional Representation is obsolete, now that we have technology to easily implement Proxy Direct Democracy. (I discussed Proxy DD in a fairly recent post). 2. Largest Remainder, with the Hare quota, doesn't favor small parties. It's unbiased with respect to party-size. But it's also not

Re: [EM] JamesonQ, wrt critical part of re: Kristofer Munsterhjelm

> > > As long as you also point to AmPR, it doesn't matter that you also push > SODA and what-not..., but if AmPR gets hot, because of FairVote's > comparative advantage at marketing electoral reform to US_Americans, and > your products don't, it might be time to shift tactics. > Great. As long as

Re: [EM] JamesonQ, wrt critical part of re: Kristofer Munsterhjelm

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/11/17 David L Wetzell > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jameson Quinn >> wrote: >> >>> JQ:Unfortunately, I think it's hard to build a national or even a local >>> movement for a complicated, multi-step reform plan. You h

Re: [EM] Poll for favorite multi-winner voting system

I have some problems in putting these methods in the order of preference. In both single-winner and multi-winner methods I tend to think that the answer is often different for different needs and different societies. I'm used to open lists. I wouldn't recommend changing them to STV because that

Re: [EM] 3 seat Largest Remainder Hare avoids the pit-falls of most ordered party-list elections.

David L Wetzell wrote: I blogged about this at my blog a while back in response to the args given by the Electoral Reform Society of the UK against ordered party list forms of PR. http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/05/electoral-reform-society-united-kingdom.html I think a better way to

Re: [EM] Addenda: Who is wronged in MMPO bad-example? MCA protection of top-rated from middle-rated. 3-slot SFC. The 100, 15, 0 example.

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: Kristofer: I'd said: MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: Who is wronged in Kevin's MMPO bad-example? --- Yesterday I asked how bad C can be, in that example, if nearly all the A voters are indifferent between B and C, and the only one not indi