[EM] the Burlington VT city council just voted to put a redistricting map i drew on the ballot for a charter change...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/comments/article/20130923/NEWS02/309230036/Burlington-City-Council-selects-new-ward-system the plan that goes with it ain't exactly what i wanted, but this was interesting, kinda weird. i guess it's my contribution to civics in my local area. (i just wis

Re: [EM] Modification of STV to guard against favourite betrayal

On 9/9/13 7:10 AM, Peter Zbornik wrote: does anyone of you know if there is any modification known to STV, which makes it satisfy the favorite betrayal criterion? well, you can make your STV more Condorcet-like by modifying it to be Bottom Two Runoff STV (BTR-STV or BTR-IRV.) Some people

Re: [EM] FairVote comment on Burlington dumping IRV

On 7/4/13 6:55 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: 52% is barely a defeat and a huge turnout in wards against IRV could also reflect hard to prove fraud or a possibly an off-the-books well-funded GOTV campaign. IOW, there is no smoking gun or clear indictment against IRV due to the politicking and sli

Re: [EM] Historical perspective about FairVote organization

On 3/13/13 4:16 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: For the benefit of those who don't understand why FairVote promotes IRV (instant-runoff voting) in opposition to many forum participants here, I'm posting this extract from an excellent, well-written, long message by Abd. On 3/13/2013 11:46 AM, Abd ul-Rah

Re: [EM] Proposed bullet-voting prohibition criterion

On 1/31/13 1:05 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: On 1/30/2013 2:21 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: ... For instance, the LNHe failure of such traditional unimproved Condorcet (TUC) methods, such as Beatpath, Ranked-Pairs, etc. is admitted by most to be a disadvantage. To anyone here who is isn't already a

Re: [EM] Acronyms and threads

On 1/25/13 1:52 AM, Richard Fobes wrote: You [mike o] have claimed that you do not dismiss feedback presented in this forum. Now you have an opportunity, regarding this simple request, to prove me wrong. guys, there is a simple solution to this problem that most email clients support: Messag

Re: [EM] Request re. Acronym Use on this list

On 1/21/13 9:31 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote: I do not spend enough time following this subject to memorize all the acronyms. Could posters to this list please make your emails comprehensible to someone like myself by spelling out the words comprising the acronym when it is first used in each and every

Re: [EM] Resonance

On 1/20/13 2:40 AM, Richard Fobes wrote: Michael Ossipoff, you don't seem to take the time to carefully read the messages posted here. filters (or kill files) are useful. i guess i have much less patience that Richard and most other folks here. i kill-filed Michael O and Abd and Kathy Dopp

Re: [EM] Canadian politician supports "a preferential ballot, or a ranked ballot"

On 1/18/13 1:52 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 01/17/2013 06:07 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: Soon enough, just as has happened in Aspen (CO) and Burlington (VT), the weaknesses of IRV counting will get exposed. In the meantime, just getting people to talk about, and think about, the possibili

Re: [EM] [CES #6984] Re: Wow: new, simple Bucklin motivation for CMJ. So renaming to Graduated MJ.

On 1/8/13 1:03 PM, Warren Smith wrote: So should this realization by Jameson Quinn tell us that all previous historical examples of Bucklin voting should be regarded as examples of the "Majority-Judgment" median-based system, and hence can be used to help evaluate how the latter behaves in practi

Re: [EM] Comment on MJ discussion

On 1/6/13 2:46 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 01/06/2013 01:54 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: We live in a technological society. Among some people, there's a tendency to worship science. Anything that;s more complex is felt to likely be better. That's MJ's mystique. It's just complicated e

Re: [EM] Gerrymandering

On 12/3/12 8:00 AM, Jonathan Denn wrote: Fair Redistricting or Ending Gerrymandering is always a great "grievance" among electoral reformers. But the "solution" is much more elusive. Do you folks ever venture into that area? can't say that i've done anything about it, but i have studied a li

Re: [EM] 3 or more choices - Condorcet

On 11/11/12 11:16 AM, Chris Benham wrote: Robert, Can I take it that your "49: A>B A>C" means that 49 voters voted A>B=C (meaning exactly the same thing as A>C=B)? I'll proceed on the assumption that your answer is yes. So if 49: A>B A>C 48: B>C>A 03: C>A C>B really means 49: A>B=C 48: B>

[EM] testing 1,2,3.... hellooooo?

none of my messages seem to be getting posted to the EM list, today. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Re: [EM] 3 or more choices - Condorcet

this is the 2nd resend. it's been hours since i first posted this and it hasn't shown up on the list. On 11/8/12 11:55 AM, Chris Benham wrote: Robert Bristow-Johnson wrote (1 Oct 2012): "my spin is similar. Ranked Pairs simply says that some "elections" (or &qu

Re: [EM] 3 or more choices - Condorcet

On 11/8/12 11:55 AM, Chris Benham wrote: Robert Bristow-Johnson wrote (1 Oct 2012): "my spin is similar. Ranked Pairs simply says that some "elections" (or "runoffs") speak more loudly than others. those with higher margins are more definitive in expressing the wi

Re: [EM] Article: Answers to some traditional Condorcet arguments

On 10/30/12 4:45 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: As long as Michael has mistakenly posted this DM article on the forum, I'll use this opportunity to say to Adrian that I have stopped reading Michael's articles at Democracy Chronicles for the reasons below. (And often I delete his posts here without r

Re: [EM] Sandy

On 10/30/12 2:08 AM, augustin wrote: To Fred, Adrian and other EM friends in New York and on the East coast: We all hope that you are all right. Let us know that you are dry and well when the power is restored and you are back online. i live in Vermont but am presently "stuck" in San Francisco

Re: [EM] The EM Peer Review Journal development web site is up!

just to let you know, i have an upcoming event with the AES that i have to worry about: http://www.aes.org/events/133/livesound/?ID=3281 and then my local Obama campaign person wants me to work with them in New Hampshire which is a small battleground state. so after the smoke and dust cle

Re: [EM] 3 or more choices - Condorcet

On 10/1/12 12:16 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 10/01/2012 12:13 AM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 30.9.2012, at 15.41, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: As far as intrinsically Condorcet methods go, Ranked Pairs feels simple to me. The only tricky part is the indirect nature of the "unless it contr

Re: [EM] 3 or more choices - Condorcet

On 9/30/12 6:13 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 30.9.2012, at 15.41, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 09/30/2012 12:51 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: i still think that a cycle with a Smith set bigger than 3 is s unlikely since i still believe that cycles themselves will be rare in practice

Re: [EM] Amateur peer-reviewed "journal" for voting methods, criteria, and compliances?

On the surface I like Jameson's idea of creating a peer-reviewed election-methods publication. I certainly understand his frustration with Wikipedia, and a peer-reviewed election-methods publication is one way to deal with the problem that Wikipedia has been -- in my opinion -- taken over by e

Re: [EM] 3 or more choices - Condorcet

On 9/29/12 4:49 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: What is a "strong" Condorcet method? yeah, and Kristofer, since the word is quoted, who is using the label? i think it might very well be something to agree with (the use of a really general adjective like "good" or "favorable" or even "optimal"), i wo

Re: [EM] 3 or more choices - Condorcet

On 9/28/12 4:11 PM, dn...@aol.com wrote: A > B Choice C comes along. C may - head to head --- 1. Beat both C > A C > B 2. Lose to both A > C B > C 3. Beat A BUT lose to B C > A > B > C Thus, obviously, a tiebreaker is needed in case 3. Obviously perhaps Approval. i.e. BOTH number votes

Re: [EM] Juho: I agree to disagree

On 9/28/12 2:32 AM, Juho Laatu wrote: Ok, thanks for the effort, trying to convince me. Juho On 28.9.2012, at 4.47, Michael Ossipoff wrote: It's time to agree to disagree. But thank you for demonstrating (as if it needed more demonstrating on EM) the impossibility of ever adopting or enacti

Re: [EM] Taylor or McLaurin polynomial for the complicated functions would reduce the numerical work.

On 7/22/12 6:23 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 07/21/2012 08:01 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: I spoke of using a polynomial approximation of G(q), the cumulative state number,and differentiating it to get F(q), the probability-density. I'd like to add that a Taylor or McLaurin polynomial ap

Re: [EM] Better runoffs

On 7/10/12 6:51 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: When runoffs are subjected to criterion analysis, one usually considers voters to vote in the same order in each round. If they prefer A to B in the first round, now how is this known, without a ranked ballot? and A and B remain in the second

Re: [EM] Nontechnical words for cardinal and ordinal categories?

On 6/21/12 6:34 AM, Kevin Venzke wrote: Why do I think new terms are worthwhile? I think that choosing the right term is an important part of activism. Neither pro-life nor pro-choice activists are satisfied with the more-descriptive "anti-abortion" or "abortion rights". Similarly, Republicans

Re: [EM] My summary of the recent discussion

On 6/3/12 5:08 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 3.6.2012, at 22.52, Jameson Quinn wrote: 2012/6/2 Juho Laatu mailto:juho4...@yahoo.co.uk>> ... One difference is that Approval is a compromise oriented method while Plurality aims at electing from (and forming) large parties. If our target i

Re: [EM] What happens when Approval doesn't let you vote Favorite>Dem>Repub?

On 5/29/12 5:35 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 29.5.2012, at 22.48, Michael Ossipoff wrote: On 29.5.2012, at 3.05, Michael Ossipoff wrote: And Approval doesn't share Condorcet's favorite-burial incentive problem. wait, that's a fresh point! why haven't i heard this before? That changes *ever

Re: [EM] Kristofer, April 3, '12, Approval vs Condorcet

On 5/19/12 5:51 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 05/15/2012 10:11 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: Or dither if you want to, but don't blame it on the voting system. I think you have misunderstood some key concepts I have been using. Let me try to make them more clear. When I talked about "

Re: [EM] To Condorcetists:

On 5/12/12 10:39 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote: I do not know what this email is asking. There’s so much that is not relevant in it that I don’t know how answer it. It’s a badly-formed question, so I don’t have any way to answer it. it's one reason why i plonked Mike. i don't see anything from M

Re: [EM] Rebuttal to article by Mike Ossipoff

i s'pose it's about time for me to write something and send it to Adrian. is it too late? it would be an analysis of what we, in Burlington Vermont, wanted to accomplish with the adoption of IRV in 2005 and how it failed in 2009. On 5/5/12 11:05 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: You ask for evid

Re: [EM] Second (and higher)-order methods?

On 4/30/12 10:50 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote: I think you misunderstood. If I have to rank the 31 baskin-robbins flavors 1 to 31, it is difficult. I'd get tired of the exercise after about the 5th choice and whatever you infer from my 6th-31st choice is based upon unreliable data. If you ask me suc

Re: [EM] Mike: Count issues - learn English

On 4/30/12 7:30 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote: Whatever handcounting is it isn’t “secure.” Seriously, you think hand-counting whatever you get from the “official ballot boxes” is a “verification” of the vote-counting? It’s not, as we repeatedly point out. You argue over and over that the only “ver

Re: [EM] Second (and higher)-order methods?

On 4/30/12 5:11 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote: I always thought the “Condorcet is like a round-robin athletic tournament” analogy was weak, because individual voters don’t get to go through the round-robin and make their pairwise preferences explicit. (As a voter, I’d find a “better/worse” pairwise

Re: [EM] Richard: Approval vs Condorcet.

On 4/30/12 3:26 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: 2012/4/29 Michael Ossipoff > What happened to Richard's promise to not read my postings? :-) Instead of continuing to repeat that he doesn't read them, maybe it would be better if he could actually llve up

Re: [EM] Kristofer: Approval vs Condorcet, 4/28/12

On 4/28/12 11:46 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote: It fails when approval is used as vote counting method. In approval COUNTING, if you voted Favorite above Compromise, you vote Favorite EQUAL Compromise, and even though you don't like Compromise, you helped elect the idiot. i've been saying this for mon

Re: [EM] Paul: Counts

But who says it has to be marked by a machine. A handcount actually doesn't requirea machine-printed ballot! I would not deceive you about that. The voter could mark hir ballot, _hirself_, without a machine! Pencils used to be used, for instance. Pens would be better, for an un-erasable ma

Re: [EM] Kristofer: Yes, maybe Condorcet could overcome its disadvantages.

On 4/28/12 1:13 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: But maybe the reason why that wasn't always done to IRV proposals was because the big opponents knew that IRV wasn't going to really improve on Pluralilty anyway, given current electorates. I doubt it. Of course it could be the case that high-

Re: [EM] Answers regarding claim about Approval's enact-ability

On 4/16/12 8:25 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: 2012/4/16 Richard Fobes <mailto:electionmeth...@votefair.org>> On 4/16/2012 12:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 4/16/12 12:42 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: As I recall the issue is that I stated in a

Re: [EM] Answers regarding claim about Approval's enact-ability

On 4/16/12 7:49 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: On 4/16/2012 12:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: hey Richard, how did you get "electionmeth...@votefair.org" for the Reply-to header?". i had to change it to get this to post. That's the email account I sent the message f

Re: [EM] Answers regarding claim about Approval's enact-ability

hey Richard, how did you get "electionmeth...@votefair.org" for the Reply-to header?". i had to change it to get this to post. On 4/16/12 12:42 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: Mike seems to be in a hurry for an explanation for my earlier statement. As I recall the issue is that I stated in a previ

Re: [EM] ¿Why do some absolutely hate ScoreVoting and insist on Ranked Ballots?

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

Re: [EM] A modification to Condorcet so that one can vote against monsters.

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

Re: [EM] Comments on some rank methods

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

Re: [EM] ¿Why do some absolutely hate ScoreVoting and insist on Ranked Ballots?

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. I have a question for them: and my question for you is: how high

Re: [EM] ¿Why do some absolutely hate ScoreVoting and insist on Ranked Ballots?

On 4/13/12 4:21 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 4/13/12 3:11 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: I have had interactions with people on this list hating rated ballots. I have a question for them: and my question for you is: how high should a voter rate his/her contingency choice? he/she does not

Re: [EM] ¿Why do some absolutely hate ScoreVoting and insist on Ranked Ballots?

On 4/13/12 3:11 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: ¡Hello! ¿How fare you? we're good. I have had interactions with people on this list hating rated ballots. I have a question for them: and my question for you is: how high should a voter rate his/her contingency choice? he/she

Re: [EM] Burlington versus Aspen in Declaration

slim majority of Burlington voters who rejected IRV didn't do so because of that and were fully unaware of any notion of a CW. On 4/7/2012 11:12 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > ... > just to be clear, i am not (yet) a signer. maybe i should be, but i > really can't get b

Re: [EM] Burlington versus Aspen in Declaration

On 4/8/12 12:00 AM, Richard Fobes wrote: On 4/6/2012 12:45 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: ... Question 5. If you have not signed the Declaration, why? i had a couple of problems. two that i remember is that it cited the 2009 Mayoral election in my town, Burlington Vermont, as an example

Re: [EM] Democracy Chronicles, answers to interview questions

e the questions that editor Adrian Tawfik is inviting us to answer. Clarifications follow the questions. Question 1. Your name and the city and country you work in. Robert Bristow-Johnson Burlington, Vermont, USA Question 2. What is your Company or Organization? self employed. w

Re: [EM] Democracy Chronicles, where to send answers to interview questions

On 4/6/12 2:14 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: On 4/6/2012 10:28 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: where do i send my answers, Richard? i hadn't seen an email address for Adrian or for Democracy Chronicles. Simply reply to my original forum message (not this one). That will post your reply t

Re: [EM] Democracy Chronicles, answers to interview questions

On 4/5/12 2:36 AM, Richard Fobes wrote: Great news: The online newspaper named "Democracy Chronicles" wants to write an article about our "Declaration of Election-Method Reform Advocates"! ... Clarifications: * Please change the subject heading if you are writing something other than you

Re: [EM] Dave: Condorcet

On 4/1/12 2:23 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:42 AM, MIKE OSSIPOFF (whom i've plonked) wrote: Dave: You wrote: Which leaves me promoting Condorcet. It allows ranking but, unlike ABucklin or IRV, all that a voter ranks gets counted. Further, any voter able to match their desir

Re: [EM] E-Petition for the Schulze Method

On 3/23/12 2:37 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 03/23/2012 05:36 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 3/23/12 12:00 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: Hallo, here is an e-petition for the Schulze method: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31387 note the ".gov.uk" . i gues

Re: [EM] E-Petition for the Schulze Method

On 3/23/12 12:00 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: Hallo, here is an e-petition for the Schulze method: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31387 note the ".gov.uk" . i guess i am not eligible. Markus Schulze Markus, if you find an e-petition for Schulze here in the US, i'll sign it. i w

Re: [EM] Burlington's first post-IRV mayoral election

On 3/9/12 2:54 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: 2012/3/9 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <mailto:km_el...@lavabit.com>> On 03/08/2012 06:27 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: It didn't happen, much to my astonishment: http://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CT/Elections/Results---DMS-

[EM] Burlington's first post-IRV mayoral election

Well, for the time-being, I'm gonna have to hold my peace and let the anti-IRV Democrats crow for at least 3 years. When IRV was repealed in 2010, one year after the infamous 2009 IRV election where the IRV winner, the Plurality winner, and the Condorcet winner were 3 different candidates, t

Re: [EM] Is Helios online voting secure?

On 2/23/12 6:36 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: 2012/2/23 Jameson Quinn > 2. You could use secure machines, booted from CD with no hard drive, at polling stations. Of course, if you're using polling stations anyway, you should be printing hand-marked or at

Re: [EM] Campaign contribution reform

On 2/21/12 1:45 PM, Richard Fobes wrote: [pulled out of message below] On 2/20/2012 5:18 AM, Raph Frank wrote: ... > I assume you mean campaign contribution reform? That isn't actually > an election method. Nope. As I see it, using better ballots and better counting methods will cut the pupp

Re: [EM] Question about Schulze beatpath method

On 2/20/12 1:15 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: Hallo, in example 3 of my paper, the weakest link of the strongest path from candidate A to candidate C is the same link as the weakest link in the strongest path from candidate C to candidate A: http://m-schulze.webhop.net/schulze1.pdf the thing that

Re: [EM] élection de trois élection de trois

On 2/19/12 8:53 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: It seems quite a few election rules get quirky in one way or the other with a 3-way competitive election. That might be a point worth considering in the abstract in a paper or something why are 3-way single-winner elections quirky? isn't it ob

Re: [EM] Question about Schulze beatpath method

On 2/17/12 1:27 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: it can happen that the weakest link in the strongest path from candidate A to candidate B and the weakest link in the strongest path from candidate B to candidate A is the same link, say CD. how can that be? since a path is a *defeat* path. you only t

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/9/12 10:55 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: (Your idea of all the utilities being 0 or 1 can't even be made to work as a model, I don't think, unless voters really only have two stances toward candidates. Because what happens when you introduce a thi

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/9/12 5:19 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: Condorcet is a natural extension to the multi-candidate case (still assuming competitive elections). Maybe not the only one though. In another mail I just addressed the possbility of having single-winner elections that aim at electing the winner from one of

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bristow-johnson wrote: ... if it's not the majority that rule, what's the alternative? I'm not aware of any good alternatives to majority rule in competitive two-candidate elections (with some extra assumption

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/8/12 5:53 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: I would +1 to Bryan Mills' post. i still have trouble with all of the contrived assumptions that are made just to avoid coming to a conclusion of "simple majority" vote and "one person, one vote" for a simple 2-candidate or 2-choice election. i was exp

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/7/12 2:07 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote: Hi Robert, I think that the basic claim of "Condorcet doesn't necessarily pick the option whom the elecotorate prefers" (in terms of total utility) won't be too controversial. Any kind of model usually assumes internal utilities (such as based on distances

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/7/12 6:30 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 7.2.2012, at 5.31, robert bristow-johnson wrote: how can Clay build a proof where he claims that "it's a proven mathematical fact that the Condorcet winner is not necessarily the option whom the electorate prefers"? if he is makin

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

one thing i forgot to mention... On 2/5/12 5:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 02/04/2012 06:14 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: ... that is not well defined. given Abd's example: 2: Pepperoni (0.61), Cheese (0.5), Mushroom (0.4) 1: Cheese (0.8), Mushroom (0.7), Pepperoni (0)

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

responding to both Andy and Kristofer... On 2/6/12 2:31 PM, Andy Jennings wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 10:01 PM, robert bristow-johnson mailto:r...@audioimagination.com>> wrote: i really don't want this question distracted too much with "the guys and i are going ou

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/4/12 10:39 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: With information like this it should be (in principle) a quite mechanical process to check all relevant available methods against the targets and environment description, and then pick the best method (and ballot format)

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/4/12 4:01 PM, Juho Laatu wrote: On 4.2.2012, at 19.14, robert bristow-johnson wrote: so, i have a few questions for everyone here: 1. do we all agree that every voter's franchise is precisely equal? 2. if each voter's franchise is equal, should we expect any voter

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

On 2/4/12 4:12 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 02/04/2012 06:47 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 2/3/12 11:06 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: No, he's saying that when the CW and the true, honest utility winner differ, the latter is better. I agree, but it's not an argument wo

Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet

Clay Shentrup wrote: Condorcet systems fundamentally try to maximize the wrong thing. no. excluding the cases where there are cycles (which is another topic), there is no quantitative metric to be "the wrong thing". Condorcet only imposes a logical consistency that, from a popula

Re: [EM] Sparring over AV vs IRV at Least of All Evils...

On 2/3/12 6:00 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I consider the whole "encourages big parties to follow the moving center" thing to be so ridiculous as not to bear argument, i do too. fully agree. given that, as DSH points out, the center is one of the worst places to be in IRV. as evidenced in the

Re: [EM] re Unger wrt tabulation

On 2/3/12 10:41 AM, David L Wetzell wrote: dlw: I do change my mind. The fact I haven't wrt IRV is because I got a good case and it is a huge non sequitur to presume that "the" solution to the US's political problems is for it to

Re: [EM] re Unger wrt tabulation

On 2/2/12 3:40 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: From: robert bristow-johnson mailto:r...@audioimagination.com>> To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com <mailto:election-methods@lists.electorama.com> Cc: Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:36:11 -0500 Subject: Re: [EM

Re: [EM] [CES #4429] Looking at Condorcet

On 2/2/12 2:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking. (How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which allows honest rating to be full-strength in practice; and SODA i

Re: [EM] Unger, wrt tabulation.

On 2/2/12 2:16 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: I do change my mind. The fact I haven't wrt IRV is because I got a good case and it is a huge non sequitur to presume that "the" solution to the US's political problems is for it to become an EU-style multi-party system careful, David. a hard-wo

Re: [EM] Unger, wrt tabulation.

2012/2/2 Stephen Unger mailto:un...@cs.columbia.edu>> A fundamental problem with all these fancy schemes is vote tabulation. All but approval are sufficiently complex to make manual processing messy, hey, listen, it's messy just the way it is. i participa

Re: [EM] [CES #4429] Looking at Condorcet

On 2/1/12 11:28 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: Dave gives good reasons for Condorcet. I'd like to present the other side. Condorcet systems have many advantages. So what's wrong with Condorcet? It comes in a bewildering array of forms, thus reducing the unity of its supporters. But that's not the r

Re: [EM] Looking at Condorcet

On 2/1/12 10:22 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: Mike offers serious thinking about Approval. I step up to Condorcet as being better and nearly as simple for the voter. Voter can vote as in: . FPTP, ranking the single candidate liked best, and treating all others as equally liked less or disliked.

Re: [EM] STV+AV.

On 1/31/12 3:23 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: STV requires much more work on the part of the voter - ranking all the way down to a candidate likely to be elected, instead of just one. That probably means a much larger ballot and/or an arbitrary cutoff between ballot-candidates and

Re: [EM] Gaming the Vote

On 1/30/12 7:48 PM, Ted Stern wrote: I've been thinking that one way to spread information about alternative voting systems might be to gamify one or more systems. Wikipedia explains gamification better than I could: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamification wow, that says something beca

Re: [EM] Published references for CW/ Range winner relation?

On 1/24/12 7:01 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: Does anyone have any references of academic papers that talk about the relationship between the honest CW and the honest Range winner? Ie, when are they necessarily the same or not? ya know, i still wonder why these guys continue to say that Range/Score

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

listen guys, i plonked MIKE OSSIPOFF long ago. except from what you repeat, i have no idea what he's been saying. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." On 1/21/12 10:04 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: A word from someone who is mo

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] Brief Comment on IRV debate

sorry, guys, i don't have time to write much now (but i will try to tonight). but similar to the repeal vote in 2010, and similar to the two-party system, i feel that the choice you're offering (SODA vs. IRV3) is a choice between Dumb and Dumber. we need a decent ranked ballot so that we ar

Re: [EM] Chicken or Egg re: Kathy Dopp

On 12/16/11 4:29 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: KD:Actually, if we support the adoption of proportional representation, it is a good reason to strongly oppose IRV and STV which will sour the public on any notions of changing US electoral systems for decades and greatly hinder any progress towards pr

Re: [EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

so Jan, i heard that you were for "keeping plurality voting over IRV in Fort Collins". is that true? do you continue to feel the same way about FPTP vs. IRV? On 12/3/11 3:37 PM, Jan Kok wrote: The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by Congress, and he can start wars. An

Re: [EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

thank you, Jan. well put. i would prefer to be on the same side as Rob Ritchie and FairVote, but i just cannot abide with the IRV happy talk. it was a mistake to bundle and sell the Hare/STV method of tabulation along with the ranked-ballot. and, unfortunately in Burlington, both were re

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 12/2/11 11:46 AM, David L Wetzell wrote: dlw: Deep down, I am skeptical of whether a multi-party system improves things that much or would do so in my country. RBJ:i am thoroughly convinced that a multi-party (and viable independent) system improves things over the

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 12/1/11 11:33 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote: Trying one more time to start a sales pitch for switching from IRV to Condorcet. well regarding me, you're preaching to the choir. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Election-Met

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 12/1/11 5:14 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: KM:If the cost of campaigning is high enough that only the two major parties can play the game, then money (what you call $peech) will still have serious influence. dlw:My understanding/political theory is that $peech is inevitable and

Re: [EM] ... wrt Burlington et al.

again, the subject is not about me and the header should reflect that. On 11/27/11 4:15 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: dlw: The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto center. KM: But positioning yourself around the de fa

Re: [EM] ranked pair method that resolves beat path ties.

so this is interesting. it seems to be an extension of Tideman ranked-pairs that considers first the margins and then the opposing votes (or winning votes for the opponent) to break ties. is that essentially it? On 11/27/11 10:21 PM, Ross Hyman wrote: When beat path produces a tie, this

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/26/11 6:58 PM, matt welland wrote: On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 16:56 -0500, robert bristow-johnson wrote: the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't sat in the mayor's chair for decades. Is this due to a split of the liberal vote by progressives or other liberal

Re: [EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

On 11/26/11 4:08 PM, David L Wetzell wrote: The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto center. But positioning yourself around the de facto center is dangerous in IRV. You might get center-squeezed unless either you or your voters start

  1   2   3   4   >