--- On Thu, 9/4/09, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:
From: Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV and Brown vs. Smallwood
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Thursday, 9 April, 2009, 7:39 PM
--- On Thu, 9/4/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el
--- On Thu, 9/4/09, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
Actually it may be a quite good strategy in
IRV not to rank those favourite candidates
that do not have a chance but to rank only
those candidates that have a chance. This
increases the
Sorry, fifth line was wrong, should be:
25: DrDmRmRr
20: DmDrRmRr
05: DmRmDrRr
05: RmDmRrDr
20: RmRrDmDr
25: RrRmDmDr
Juho
--- On Thu, 9/4/09, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
From: Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV and Brown vs. Smallwood
To: election-methods
Thanks Peter for your comments
Suppose that by my estimation about the electorate is about
400: Smith, Jones, Johnson
300: Jones, Smith, Johnson
600: Johnson, Jones, Smith
Johnson loses regardless as to whether Smith or Jones is eliminated
Normal IRV with no strategy:
Jones is eliminated in the
--- On Wed, 8/4/09, Don Cathy Hoffard dchoff...@verizon.net wrote:
Thanks Peter for your comments
Suppose that by my estimation about the electorate is
about
400: Smith, Jones, Johnson
300: Jones, Smith, Johnson
600: Johnson, Jones, Smith
Johnson loses regardless as to whether
Thanks Ralph for pointing out my oversite.
The primary may be non-monotonic as well as the general election but
together they are monotonic.
You presumably meant that the other way around. Plurality is
monotonic for both elections, but the 2 taken together result in
strategy and a
Yet me give you an example
Vote for mayor:
We have three candidate running for mayor
Vote for one:
[ ] Smith
[ ] Jones
[ ] Johnson
If Smith has the least number of votes and is eliminated then who
would you vote for.
[ ] Jones
[ ] Johnson
If Jones has the least number of votes
Thanks Kathy for your comments
Is it also reasonable when IRV elects a winner who the majority of
voters oppose in an instant?
Don, your conception of equality is surely different than my own.
The relative question is Does IRV violate the Equal Protection Clause of
the Constitution?
If it does
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:53:47 -0700
From: Don Cathy Hoffard dchoff...@verizon.net
Kathy Dopp Said:
Let's hope that the Minnesota Supremes have more sense and more
concern for the principles of the US constitution, than the IRV
promoters at Fair Vote.
IRV is, instant voting,
Kathy Dopp Said:
Let's hope that the Minnesota Supremes have more sense and more
concern for the principles of the US constitution, than the IRV
promoters at Fair Vote.
I relevant part of the U.S. Constitution is the 14th amendment, and in
particular the Equal Protection Clause.
Under GRAY v.
Kathy Dopp wrote:
That anyone would suggest that anyone should use such an inane voting
method as IRV/STV is beyond my understanding - except if they are
trying to help voting machine vendors profit by selling an all-new
round of high-tech voting machines or if they are trying to implement
a
-berlin.de
To: election-meth...@electorama.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV and Brown vs. Smallwood
Dear Terry Bouricius,
you wrote (18 Jan 2009):
FairVote is not responsible for reports by
the League of Women Voters or lawyers writing
scholarly articles
From: Markus Schulze markus.schu...@alumni.tu-berlin.de
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV and Brown vs. Smallwood
Tony Solgard was president of FairVote Minnesota
when he wrote the quoted article in which he claims
that Condorcet was unconstitutional in Minnesota.
Also the report by the League
Dear Terry Bouricius,
you wrote (18 Jan 2009):
Do you have any example of FairVote suggesting Condorcet
methods might be unconstitutional?
See appendices 3 and 4 of this study:
http://www.lwvmn.org/LWVMNAlternativeVotingStudyReport.pdf
Markus Schulze
Election-Methods mailing list -
constitutionality.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: Markus Schulze markus.schu...@alumni.tu-berlin.de
To: election-meth...@electorama.com
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] IRV and Brown vs. Smallwood
Dear Terry Bouricius,
you wrote (18 Jan 2009):
Do you have
Dear Terry Bouricius,
you wrote (18 Jan 2009):
FairVote is not responsible for reports by
the League of Women Voters or lawyers writing
scholarly articles.
Tony Solgard was president of FairVote Minnesota
when he wrote the quoted article in which he claims
that Condorcet was unconstitutional
Hallo,
FairVote always argued that Brown vs. Smallwood
declared Bucklin unconstitutional because of
its violation of later-no-harm. FairVote always
claimed that, therefore, also Condorcet methods
were unconstitutional.
However, the memorandum of the district court
doesn't agree to this
Hallo,
in 1915, the Supreme Court of Minnesota declared
the preferential system unconstitutional. The
decision (Brown vs. Smallwood) is here:
http://rangevoting.org/BrownVsmallwood.pdf
The crucial sentence is (page 508):
We do right in upholding the right of the
citizen to cast a vote for
18 matches
Mail list logo
