On 04/13/2012 09:11 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
I have had interactions with people on this list hating rated
ballots. I have a question for them:
If the ballot would allow both ratings and rankings, ¿would that be
acceptable?
The ballot could allow ranking or ratings with eq
2012-04-14T05:34:03Z, “Robert Bristow-Johnson”
:
> On 4/13/12 5:46 PM, “⸘Ŭalabio‽” wrote:
>> 2012-04-13T:17:09Z, “Robert Bristow-Johnson”
>> :
>>> On 4/13/12 3:11 PM, “⸘Ŭalabio‽” wrote:
I have had interactions with people on this list hating rated ballots.
>>>
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
It is tedious to rank hundreds of candidates, but sometimes monster is
on the ballot and all unranked candidates are last. If the field is so
polarized that the voters idiotically refuse to rank other serious candidates
other than their candidate
On 04/10/2012 10:20 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Kristofer:
You wrote:
On 04/09/2012 11:31 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I've said seemingly contradictory things about IRV. It's particularly
flagrant FBC failure makes it entirely inadequate for
public political elections, more so than Condorcet, w
On 4/14/12 5:13 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 04/10/2012 10:20 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
On 04/09/2012 11:31 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
I've said seemingly contradictory things about IRV. It's particularly
flagrant FBC failure makes it entirely inadequate for
public political elections
On 4/14/12 3:45 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
It is tedious to rank hundreds of candidates, but sometimes monster is
on the ballot and all unranked candidates are last. If the field is so
polarized that the voters idiotically refuse to rank other serious
On 4/14/12 3:42 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>but your mapping makes the ranked ballot synonymous with the score ballot.
that is my point.
In all voting systems, one counts votes at some point. ScoreVoting is
just more explicit about it.
no, Score voting does *not* count votes. it tot
On 4/14/12 8:31 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 4/14/12 3:45 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
It is tedious to rank hundreds of candidates, but sometimes monster
is on the ballot and all unranked candidates are last. If the field
is so polarized that the voters idiotically re
2012/4/14 Andrew Myers
> On 4/14/12 8:31 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>> On 4/14/12 3:45 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>>
>>> ¡Hello!
>>>
>>> ¿How fare you?
>>>
>>> It is tedious to rank hundreds of candidates, but sometimes monster is
>>> on the ballot and all unranked candidates are last. If the
2012-04-14T12:31:48Z, “Robert Bristow-Johnson”
:
> all this is complicated crap that gunks up elections. it has an
> ice-cube's chance in hell.
I disagree. Perhaps I am unclear:
1:
Lincoln
2:
Washington
3:
Evil-Indicator Candidate
4:
S
On 4/14/2012 5:42 AM, Andrew Myers wrote:
On 4/14/12 8:31 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 4/14/12 3:45 AM, ?U(alabio? wrote:
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
It is tedious to rank hundreds of candidates, but sometimes monster
is on the ballot and all unranked candidates are last. If the field
is
I'd said:
>* That would be much better than the electowiki, where anything that anyone*>*
>posts can be deleted, replaced or modified. Someone on EM*>* told me that you
>mis-defined a method at the electowiki.*>**
You said:
I'd love to know what you're talking about.
[endquote]
You mean abou
Jameson:
You wrote the 3 paragraphs quoted immediately below. But noice that, immediately
below your 3 paragraphs, in your own posting, and in my copy below,
are the words
wich which I had just finished answering an objection about the same
as yours, and
clarifying what i was talking about:
Your
>**>>* You keep saying anything without FBC is automatically a no-go. How
>do*>>* you know that?*>**>* [endquote]*>**>* It is a country-specific
>observation, regarding the electorate of the U.S., where I*>* reside. I don't
>know that about any other country, though there is evidence for it in
I said:
"With an electorate that doesn't need FBC, and who are clear and honest
with themselves about
what they consider to be acceptable--that's when and how FBC can be a
fine method.
"...because it is entirely defection-proof, and because it meets the
Mutual Majority Criterion."
Of couse, when
I choke when I see IRV called "fine" - it too easily ignores parts of
what the voters say. For example, look at what can happen with A
being much liked, yet IRV not always noticing:
20 A
20 B>A
22 C>A
Joe ?
Condorcet would see A elected by 62 votes (plus, perhaps, Joe's
63rd). IRV would
16 matches
Mail list logo
