At 06:20 AM 11/2/2009, Michael Allan wrote:
If I understand you Abd, we're currently developing the tools for
voters to do essentially what you describe. And we've made some
progress recently:
Drafting media: http://t.zelea.com/wiki/Toronto:Pollwiki
Voting engine: http://t.zelea.com:8080
If I understand you Abd, we're currently developing the tools for
voters to do essentially what you describe. And we've made some
progress recently:
Drafting media: http://t.zelea.com/wiki/Toronto:Pollwiki
Voting engine: http://t.zelea.com:8080/v/w/
Bird's eye view: http://t.zelea.com/wi
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:43 PM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting point...
>
> Will there be factorial as many candidates?
No, but there is a point of decreasing returns. Is 10 options is
better than 1 option, but 100 options isn't that much better than 10.
>
> Since the vote
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 6:40 AM, Raph Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Iterative systems are based on "conditional" votes, meaning their
>> relative values change with regard to what has "happened". For
>> example, your vo
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Greg Nisbet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iterative systems are based on "conditional" votes, meaning their
> relative values change with regard to what has "happened". For
> example, your vote shifting to a less preferred candidate in IRV is a
> result of a more pre
Is asset voting a good thing? Let's review.
The CRV supports it on the basis of obeying all sorts of wonderful properties.
http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/multisurv.pdf
My intitial response to this is that Asset Voting is only able to
achieve such compliance through poverty of expression.
