groups: sad to be
unable to express the exact size of their likes/dislikes; thankful for
the easier decisions involved here.
Voters who want to rank higher those they like best will be thankful
to get past approval.
Dave Ketchum
Yours, Jobst
Election-Methods mailing list - see http
What I wrote last time is about as simple as you get. Canceling the
smallest margin cancels a three-member cycle, leaving the strongest
member as CW. Could take more canceling for more complex, and thus
rarer, cycles.
Dave Ketchum
On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:54 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
, though only a nuisance if some are determined to involve such.
Dave Ketchum
On Nov 8, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:35 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
i don't think a sequence of elimination
a non-winner.
If AB = BA, keep both for the moment. If they lose to another, that
ends them. If all others lose to them, we have a tie.
Could be cycles. Comparing winner against 8 losers should identify
innocence vs guilt.
Dave Ketchum
On Oct 11, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Michael Rouse wrote
On Jul 2, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Dave
Ketchumda...@clarityconnect.com wrote:
Approval data - needs thought but my initial thought is as if each
approval was a plurality vote - does mean a voter approving 2 gets
2 votes
counted but relative
- likely needs a C. Amendment.
Each state select from an agreed set of methods? Worth thought,
but this could inspire 14th Amendment complaints.
Dave Ketchum
On Jul 2, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Without going into detail
that there should
be ONE X*X array for the US for this purpose, so that all cooperating
states give the same instructions to their electors.
On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Food for thought:
The National Popular Vote effort is a proper attempt to hear
voters better in electing
, voters can both vote what is
generally agreed on as to expectable winners, and what odd may be
added for their state.
Dave Ketchum
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Thanks Juho!
It matters for most, if not all, methods, including Plurality.
Individually voters can rarely do anything, collectively they are the
result producers - without any necessity for contact amongst themselves.
Dave Ketchum
On Jun 18, 2009, at 7:22 AM, Juho Laatu wrote
.
On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
WDS responds:
really it is better to regard N as the cardinality of the subset
of candidates that the
public thinks have a chance of winning.
Dave Ketchum:
I would add any candidates that a significant percentage of the
voters
wish belonged
necessarily winning any election).
Dave Ketchum
On Jun 10, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
I would go for a different strategy - whatever leads toward long-term
strength.
Winning the current election is usually pretty good.
A third party, looking ahead, can think of what will make
- and
be puzzled. Both can rank A=B while Condorcet can also rank AB (or
BA) when that is a voter's desire.
Dave Ketchum
On Jun 9, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
in major elections, we usually have a pretty good idea who the
frotrunners
A B are.
If we genuinely had no idea and the V-1 other
not. What matters is ability to recognize voters' use of
ability promised to them - and to count this.
I'd say that's one of _several_ things that matter if you are going
to do voting reform activism in the real world.
Cheers,
- Jan
Dave Ketchum
What follows wanders into straining
It matters what is said, not whether speaking in different languages
affects whether different information can be contained in the same
size statement.
Paul is stating, correctly, that reading a ballot that only approves
{B C} provides no information as to the voter's desires being BC,
BC , and can indicate
which is most preferred.
Dave Ketchum
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
; with bad
luck can horrify.
Dave Ketchum
From an information science perspective it is clear that a
preferential
ballot have more information than an approval ballot.
--and range ballots still more.
Not, if you count the effect of tactical voting: range ballot
effectively becomes
Trying for the high points.
While Condorcet concedes to Range ability to indicate strength of
preferences, it's ranking gives voters unconditional ability to
indicate, for any pair of voters, which is liked better (I expect
Condorcet to permit multiple equal ranks, though I know some who
I have trouble finding value in the specific label non-approved.
All that I do not rank share being liked less than any others - as do
those I assign lower ranks than others I indicate liking better.
DWK
On May 5, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Dermot
Ouch - What I said about IRV missed a bit. Matters little for I still
dislike IRV or Contingent Vote (which I read as running a bit faster
and more often picking the wrong winner).
On Mar 24, 2009, at 10:28 AM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:30 AM, Dave Ketchum da
On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:46 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mar 22, 2009, at 4:24 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
As stated, it's not summable. But note that the second round,
which is determined by the Plurality count, consists of a pairwise
comparison. Thus, one
(By the way, your From address was somewhat strange, purporting to
be from my own ISP, so I used an older one - I hope it's the right
one.)
Do not understand these words, but what came as cc was correct.
Simply put, the From: of your previous mail (and of this one, too)
was
described below.
DWK
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:07:28 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
So, you do not like the word campaign.
Suppose I take an interest in becoming mayor of Owego.
This will require my neighbors learning this, and something of what I
might do as mayor.
What
/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
should
consider the elements of a long-term solution.
Fred Gohlke
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you
...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http
that each ballot is in a
valid sub-pile and that the total in the sub-pile matches the original
count.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done
elects B!
Condorcet elects A.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:25:57 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word...
Scout's honour - when I say 'secret', I mean secret. The vote is
anonymous. The voter's identity is undisclosed. All that good stuff,
just like
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:30:41 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
Thanks for this. I did a search on vot and am convinced voting is
not one of their topics - and suspect you stretched to tie it in.
I had to learn new things, and got
) is allowed. It is the nature of the public sphere, and part of
the legitimacy it confers on the process. More on that later...
Dave Ketchum replied:
I get dizzy on public vs private as used here, but have to disagree
on some of the above.
As discussed below, need for secrecy/publicity
/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
followers of the two on the side likely bullet vote.
Center voters properly vote for a bunch of center candidates - hoping
one such will win.
...
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
more than
one policy dimension. Obviously where there is no centrist, there can
be no center-squeeze effect.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would
:50:05 -0500 (EST) Dale Sheldon wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Condorcet/IRV would make a better pair since the voters would do the same
ranking for both, and IRV would, usually, pick the CW when such exists.
Just so we're clear, you mean:
* Elect the Condorcet winner, if one
Extended now to EM - I should have started this in both.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:40:58 - Bruce R. Gilson wrote:
--- In rangevot...@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ketchum da...@... wrote:
We need to sort thru the possibilities of going with Condorcet. I
claim:
Method must be open - starting
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:51:36 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Re: [EM] Does IRV elect majority winners? Kristofer Munsterhjelm
wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Condorcet certainly costs more for the system than Plurality. Costs
bullet-voters nothing - provides
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:19:29 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:28 PM 1/4/2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:16:14 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. That can be a *lot* of preparation, and people
are busy, many don't already, find time for voting
definition that EXCLUDES
abstentions in determining a majority threshold.)
Terry Bouricius
...
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you
people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:05:56 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:54 PM
Ok, I did not say it clearly.
Obvious need is to package arguments such that they are salable.
Take the one about a Condorcet winner with no first preferences. Ugly
thought
. But effective President - never!
Dave Ketchum Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 4:24 AM
Such a weak Condorcet winner would also be unlikely.
Second preferences?
That 5% would have to avoid the two strong candidates.
The other two have to avoid voting for each other - likely
.
James Gilmour
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods
systems fell into.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election
My point was ONLY that the voter could have equal feeling as to the
frontrunners. Here Abd offers some thought on that topic.
DWK
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:53:09 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:31 PM 12/4/2008, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Favored frontrunner? Trying to add some thought
the frontrunners.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list
'.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see
San Francisco, Burlington, and Pierce County.
STV data from Cambridge and Ireland. Preferential presidential polls
from Ireland. And more. I'm in the process of making it all available
online in a uniform format.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
interest and operating to the detriment of the
humans among us.
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you
around), and the results are
disastrous - and not just for the French in this case - we all had to live
with the political consequences of this election.
James Gilmour
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607
. It is a tragedy that so few
of us recognize (or are willing to acknowledge) that we have
relinquished our right to govern ourselves to unknown people who
proclaim themselves our agents.
...
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:50:22 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
...
Assuming that this represents 100 votes for A then 100 AC is
represented. If B was also in the matrix there would be 100 AB.
This last 100 fails to show up below:
Oops. Yes, that's true. Still
gets discarded.
DWK
Juho
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Three rounds
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Tuesday, 11 November, 2008, 6:43 PM
Not clear to me what you meant
candidate at different
rounds.)
Juho
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:37:35 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
...
States have differing collections of candidates:
In theory, could demand there be a single national list. More
practical
eliminate some of the problems of sequential elimination
(e.g. by using approval and avoid losing the eliminated candidates).)
Juho
--- On Mon, 10/11/08, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EM] Three rounds
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: election
of that in
deciding on a winner - as to C and D the possibilities are:
CD
DC
C=D = the voter indicates equal liking by giving them the same rank
or by ranking neither.
DWK
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 18:54:27 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 6:02 PM
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 23:28:01 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:59 PM
I have not inspected the affidavits for completeness or
correctness. I am only comparing the methods.
Assuming IRV's rules result in declaring A or B winner, it would not care
be a fatal flaw in IRV, would it
not also be a fatal flaw in Condorcet counting, and indeed in any other
voting system where voters may express different numbers
of preferences?
James Gilmour
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego
supporters help
them on grounds like it fails Later-no-Harm, Later-no-Help, and
probably mono-add-top?
Chris Benham
Dave Ketchum wrote (Fri.Nov.7):
Perhaps this could get some useful muscle by adding such as:
9 BA
Now we have 34 voting BA. Enough that they can expect to win and may
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with
weaknesses most of us in EM recognize.
Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.
I propose Condorcet. One advantage is that states could
) of my paper, I explain how the electoral
college should be combined with Condorcet voting:
I would not combine, but would try for the best we could with an amendment.
Markus Schulze
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY
unequally treats
voters and see if the attorneys use it or not.
Thanks.
Kathy
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Topic below is monotonicity, which seems discardable as a side issue.
Of more importance is IRV's NOT CARING whether more voters indicate
at once. First, there would need
to be an extremely close national election and also an extremely close
State vote.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want
as
runoffs.
DWK
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:00:56 -0300 Diego Santos wrote:
2008/11/2 Kristofer Munsterhjelm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Ketchum wrote:
A few thoughts:
Plurality or Approval cannot fill need.
IRV uses about the same ballot
member to act for them. I
am sure this is a committee rules topic - perhaps the rule should limit haw
many other members one can act for - less than what this chair possessed.
...
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego
no way to
express them.
Someone please show me the NxN matrix that Dave Ketchum would use to
combine these votes with the other votes that had been cast on ranked
ballots.
Condorcet N*N matrices are simply added together, element by element. Gets
a bit complicated, but is doable, to prepare
PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http
to seek our own interest. We must
make self-interest a tool in our arsenal rather than leaving it for
others to wield against us.
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do
proposal that involves aggregating different
voting methods in various subjurisdictions into a single result.
Thanks in advance.
--Bob
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one
keep the extra strength the EC has given them.
Note that such scaling could be applied to the contents of N*N arrays.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would
them.
Better might be a weighted vote (but who'd set the weights?).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want
and that voters in compliant states get - go beat
on the laggard states. The intent is to expedite full compliance without
demanding such.
DWK
--Bob
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Was: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Is the Electoral College recognized as having lived ot its useful
life? If so, perhaps we
.
This is exactly what I'm referring to. I was specifically *not* saying
that Condorcet-compliant methods themselves could violate
one-person-one-vote. That's not the case.
--Bob
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:51:55 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
Some states may not be up to Condorcet
Parties could not tolerate voters making THEIR OWN choices - but it took
three strikes to fire Vito!
Original Message
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:32:59 -0400
From: Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This law had what seems like a simple purpose - Republicans and Democrats
were
) Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Dave,
--- En date de : Sam 18.10.08, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Given a Condorcet cycle, how does anyone justify awarding a
winner outside?
Two possibilities:
1. to simplify the definition of the method
2. to satisfy other strategy criteria.
Kevin
that the election gets swamped with candidates.
Not so hard that there are no candidates.
After losing in the primary, can a candidate run independent in the general
election? Perhaps, with proper petition signatures.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave
]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:14:29 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do we measure 'sincere'? In most places in the US N backers place a
candidate on a party primary ballot, and N2 (usually a larger number)
directly on the general
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:20:07 -0300 Diego Santos wrote:
2008/10/18 Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given a Condorcet cycle, how does anyone justify awarding a winner
outside?
True that deciding the winner among cycle members can be a challenge
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:08:32 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I suggest a two-step resolution:
Agree to a truce between Condorcet and Range, while they dispose
of IRV as being less capable than Condorcet.
Then go back to the war between Condorcet and Range
directly. It was handled by Congress.
Using majority rule?
That someone was me.
Sorry, Greg didn't include your name in his post (or I couldn't find
it).
No need to be sorry.
Yours, Jobst
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave
have to explain what a
Condorcet matrix is, what a beatpath is, and a lot of concepts that make
it sound foreign (a) and therefore bad (c).
Which system do you think would work best that is actually achievable?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:49:41 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
On 10/9/08, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is a near tie among three or more, they often disagree but
usually get one of the leaders - matters little since the leaders
were about
equally
) Chris Benham wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I started this thread to compare IRV vs Condorcet, believing that IRV is
provably less capable and deserves discarding.
Dave,
Comparing a decisive method with a criterion is a bit like comparing a
person with virtue. As soon as you tell us which
compliant, and many others that aren't
(complying with other criteria that some believe are more crucial). The
issue separating the various Condorcet methods is how you find a winner
when there is no Condorcet winner.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:18:50 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On 10/9/08, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there is a near tie among three or more, they often disagree but
usually get one of the leaders - matters little since the leaders were about
equally deserving.
This was part of my
, Dave Ketchum wrote:
I suggest a two-step resolution:
Agree to a truce between Condorcet and Range, while they dispose of
IRV as being less capable than Condorcet.
Then go back to the war between Condorcet and Range.
Condorcet uses essentially the same ballot as IRV, with essentially
/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
such as the
3-ballot array.
Not mentioned above is ability for those up to it to analyze the system
programming in whatever detail they see as valuable.
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:22:37 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 1:16 AM
We have to be doing different topics.
Actually we seem together on topics, but you reacted to what you took as a
cue statement without noticing what I was saying. Perhaps
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dave Ketchum' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Mixed into this, Plurality is easily done with paper; better systems
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:56:01 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
In simulation there is value, and sometimes excessive temptation, in
tailoring test cases to favor a desired result.
Maybe try an open simulator. Make the electorate engine pluggable
so experimenters can try
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:24:09 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More complete defenses are possible with electronics.
Totally FALSE statement.
Sad that we cannot look at the same reality!
Conceded that rogue programmers can do all
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:12:21 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I do not understand 'no resolution':
By time N1 there have been 10 votes in the poll - to analyze as a complete
Condorcet election.
By time N2 there have been 2 more, for a total of 12 to analyze as if a
complete
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:45:16 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ANYTHING cam get tampered with if enough doors are left ajar, including
paper ballots (such as discarding, editing, or replacing some).
True, but paper ballots must
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:52:31 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Cycles happen, and perhaps should be reported, but are NOT a reason for he
system to do anything special beyond normal analysis and reporting.
Of course reporting should e based on total voting, thus updated as soon
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:19:52 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
When there is a cycle (3 or more in a near tie) there could be demos
of whatever resolution procedures please someone.
I was never concerned with a final decision. I doubt these are in
your ballpark:
I see
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:45:14 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
For some reason, I didn't receive Dave Ketchum's reply to my post about
the Condorcet party. So let's try this again, indeed.
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:05:28 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum
201 - 300 of 371 matches
Mail list logo
