On Aug 14, 2011, at 7:32 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> After reading the ballots into the N*N matrix, look for the strongest
> candidate - the CW or what is found in the cycle when there is no CW.
>
> This fills the first seat. Then amend the matrix to exclude this CW and look
> in the matrix for
After reading the ballots into the N*N matrix, look for the strongest
candidate - the CW or what is found in the cycle when there is no CW.
This fills the first seat. Then amend the matrix to exclude this CW
and look in the matrix for whoever would be CW in the remainder. In
each step the
On Aug 14, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Why transfers?
>
> At least, when I said do a CW type search for the strongest remaining
> candidate, I thought of this as adequate without transfers. I do think of
> quitting if the remainder are too weak:
> . Anyway, quit after filling t
are too weak to deserve a seat.
Dave Ketchum
On Aug 14, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:31:55 +0100
From: "James Gilmour"
To:
Subject: Re: [EM] Preferential Party List Method Proposal
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="
On Aug 14, 2011, at 1:24 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
> My method can be modified fairly trivially to allow parties with a maximum
> size, e.g. an independent candidate would be a party with a maximum size of
> one, and simply allow surpluses to be transferred. Even the relatively naive
> Gregory tra
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:31:55 +0100
> From: "James Gilmour"
> To:
> Subject: Re: [EM] Preferential Party List Method Proposal
> Message-ID:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Greg Nisbet Sent: Sund
On Aug 13, 2011, at 11:31 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Dave Ketchum > wrote:
Glad to see thinking, though we part company on some details.
On Aug 13, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
All current forms of party list proportional representation have
each voter cas
Greg Nisbet Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:31 AM
My system does not have voters voting for candidates at all. In fact,
candidates needn't even exist (theoretically of course) for my
method to be well-defined. Instead people simply vote for parties, with parties
that can't get any seats dropped
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:32:14 +0100
> From: "James Gilmour"
> To:
> Subject: Re: [EM] Preferential Party List Method Proposal
> Message-ID: <1E8F1DC34EB34C50A49239C7C1BA6CCB@u2amd>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii&quo
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Glad to see thinking, though we part company on some details.
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
>
> All current forms of party list proportional representation have each
>> voter cast a vote for a single party. I say this
Glad to see thinking, though we part company on some details.
On Aug 13, 2011, at 5:25 PM, Greg Nisbet wrote:
All current forms of party list proportional representation have
each voter cast a vote for a single party. I say this is inadequate
since a small party can be eliminated and hence d
Greg Nisbet > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 10:25 PM
> All current forms of party list proportional representation
> have each voter cast a vote for a single party. I say this is
> inadequate since a small party can be eliminated and hence
> denied any representation (this is particularly rel
All current forms of party list proportional representation have each voter
cast a vote for a single party. I say this is inadequate since a small party
can be eliminated and hence denied any representation (this is particularly
relevant if the legislature has a threshold). However, votes for a par
13 matches
Mail list logo
