On 8/25/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like that rule better, because it factors out the loop - the one
> thing shared by all of its members. I guess it's still not fair,
> because it assumes that the loop is meaningless (that assent is not
> really uniform within it), or that
Raph Frank wrote:
> Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Except that all candidates are formally equal. Their inputs (votes
> > received) all flood out to the same level (pool), giving them equal
> > measures of assent from the voters. Without additional information,
> > there is no fair
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Raph Frank wrote:
>> 1) Find the candidate with the highest score that is part of a loop.
>
> Except that all candidates are formally equal. Their inputs (votes
> received) all flood out to the same level (pool), giving th
Raph Frank wrote:
> On 8/22/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... But cycles can occur only at the bottom of each casacade,
> > where they result in pools. Pools are equivalent to roots, so
> > d'Hondt (etc.) should still work.
>
> Maybe a rule like
>
> 1) Find the candidate with
On 8/22/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The general structure of a delegate cascade is actually a cyclic
> graph. But cycles can occur only at the bottom of each casacade,
> where they result in pools. Pools are equivalent to roots, so d'Hondt
> (etc.) should still work.
Maybe
Raph Frank wrote:
> The problem I would have with your idea is that it
> encourages long voter chains (at least near the top).
Yes, I see what you mean. My algorithm can only be an approximation
because it breaks down for extreme trees. Your's is better:
> 1) Use d'Hondt to split seats between
Raph Frank wrote:
No that isn't what I was suggesting (unless there is a
miscommunication)
It was
1) Use d'Hondt to split seats between all root candidates
Sainte-Laguë would be better, I think. Or Warren's "dynamic divisor"
scheme, although the problem of how to generalize it to party-neutral
On 8/21/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have a reference for DP?
I just mean Adb's delegable proxy ideas.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On 8/21/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your notation is:
>
> c(W)
>
> c is a candidate (meaning one who receives votes)
>
> W is the voting weight (?)
Number of votes assigned to that candidate.
>
> W = R + 1
>
> R is the count of votes received
Right, the candid
Raph Frank wrote:
> Z(10) abstained/voted for self
> A(5) voted for Z
> B(3) voted for Z
> C(1) voted for Z
>
> Y(5) abstained/voted for self
> D(1) voted for Y
> E(3) voted for Y
>
> If there were 3 seats to assign, then would go
> Z gets 2 as holds 10 votes (2/3 of votes)
> Y gets 1 as holds 5
On Aug 19, 2008, at 20:11 , Michael Allan wrote:
Juho wrote, in thread PR favoring racialminorities:
... I was also thinking about trees that offer more detailed
grouping of the candidates.
I just spoke with someone at Texas Tech. We were discussing how
cascade voting might be used to elect
On 8/19/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Juho wrote, in thread PR favoring racialminorities:
> >
> > ... I was also thinking about trees that offer more detailed
> > grouping of the candidates.
>
> I just spoke with someone at Texas Tech. We were discussing how
> cascade voting
Juho wrote, in thread PR favoring racialminorities:
>
> ... I was also thinking about trees that offer more detailed
> grouping of the candidates.
I just spoke with someone at Texas Tech. We were discussing how
cascade voting might be used to elect a proportional assembly.
Basically, you just tak
13 matches
Mail list logo
