Mike,
The election closes on Sunday, and I will post a summary of results here
using a few methods. It is interesting see what supporters of one method
think about other methods.. The ballots are also available for people to do
with as they like.
For the election that you want to conduct, you
Another Oops!. I've just realized that I posted my most recent message to the
wrong
thread. So now I'm posting it to the right thread:
.
Oops! I forgot that B voters ranked C.
.
Yes, C wins, even though C has a very low Plurality score.
.
But PC isn't intended to be Plurality. In fact, none of
On 15.10.2011, at 23.24, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Another Oops!. I've just realized that I posted my most recent message to
the wrong
thread. So now I'm posting it to the right thread:
.
Oops! I forgot that B voters ranked C.
.
Yes, C wins, even though C has a very low Plurality score.
.
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
To the person conducting the poll:
Are you going to count the rankings to determine a winner? By what method?
As far as I understood, the intent is, besides gathering votes, to
demonstrate the web-based polling system. The ballots are therefore
available in the OpenSTV
Kristofer Munsterhjelm [km_el...@lavabit.com] writes:
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
To the person conducting the poll:
Are you going to count the rankings to determine a winner? By what method?
As far as I understood, the intent is, besides gathering votes, to
demonstrate the web-based polling
but i thought they were reporting results in the near future. how are they
reporting their results?
will they be telling us who the STV winner is, the Schulze winner, the
Ranked-pairs winner, the Borda winner,
the Bucklin winner, the Coombs winner?
.
...
.
what good is the site if it
Hi Juho--
If that one example set of votes is bad enough for MMPO, then how about
this example for PC(wv)?
.
49 A
48 B C
03 C
That example doesn't have a bad result at all.
A has no pairwise defeat, and wins as Condorcet winner. I (nowadays at least)
define PC
by first saying:
If
C beats A 51-49.
2011/10/14 MIKE OSSIPOFF nkk...@hotmail.com
Hi Juho--
If that one example set of votes is bad enough for MMPO, then how about
this example for PC(wv)?
.
49 A
48 B C
03 C
That example doesn't have a bad result at all.
A has no pairwise defeat, and wins as
To the person conducting the poll:
Are you going to count the rankings to determine a winner? By what method?
I suggest that you look for a Condorcet winner, an alternative that isn't
pairwise-beaten, in any of its pairwise comparisons. And announce it to this
mailing list.
Also, I hope
for favorite single-winner voting system with OpaVote
I consider it very bad to have to use a computer at all. Any system that
requires a computer to be easy to use gets a zero vote from me.
In this system I hope the items I left off the ballot were given a zero
value? The range thing
On Oct 9, 2011, at 5:04 PM, matt welland wrote:
So now I'm going to have to stare at a ballot with 20 items and 20!
possible arrangements (is it really that many? its been a long time
since stats class). All I can say is that it sucks and I'd prefer to
stick with broken plurality rather than
matt welland wrote:
cue grumpy old man voice
So I gave the opavote thing (nicely done site BTW) a try and had the
same experience I do with every ranked vote system. Choice overload and
decision freeze up. I literally hate ranking and I hope to insert deity
of choice these things don't take
12 matches
Mail list logo
