[EM] Fwd: [Offline] IRV debate to RBJ and Mike O

A word from someone who is more grounded in "real life"... dlw To: David L Wetzell ** Mr. Wetzell, tell Mr. Ossipuff and the list (1) to look at the article *Multicollinearity and Micronumerosity ** to see the word in action; and

[EM] Jameson reply

Jameson: > Therefore, s/he can't lose if s/he is one of the two biggest votegetters in the primary. IRV doesn't have a guarantee like that. The conditional methods that I've been proposing won't elect "weak CWs", unfavorite CWs. You replied: Do you mean strategic CWs? [endquote] As people

Re: [EM] RBJ's Brief Comment on IRV debate

> > >> From: robert bristow-johnson > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Cc: > Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:57:59 -0500 > Subject: Re: [EM] Brief Comment on IRV debate > > still haven't found the time to do another treatise on this thing. > I think the opportunity cost of your time might be

Re: [EM] Brief Comment on IRV debate

still haven't found the time to do another treatise on this thing. On 1/21/12 2:47 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Jameson Quinn mailto:jameson.qu...@gmail.com>> wrote: Like I wrote, the only way a non-CW can win w. IRV is if the two biggest par

Re: [EM] IRV debate to RBJ and Mike O

> > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: robert bristow-johnson > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Cc: > Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:16:50 -0500 > Subject: Re: [EM] Brief Comment on IRV debate > > sorry, guys, i don't have time to write much now (but i will try to > tonight).

Re: [EM] Brief Comment on IRV debate

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> Like I wrote, the only way a non-CW can win w. IRV is if the two biggest >> parties do not center themselves around the center. This possibility is >> what will goad them to recenter themselves more often. That is what would >> have happ