[I rewrote the message whose draft version I sent out earlier by mistake.]
Now I have a reasonable definition of Mike Ossipoff's strategy that is supposed
to be valid for all Condorcet methods (and even for all FBC failing methods).
The strategy is if there are winnable unacceptable candidates
Now I have a reasonable definition of Mike Ossipoff's strategy that is supposed
to be valid for all Condorcet methods (and even for all FBC failing methods).
The strategy is if there are winnable unacceptable candidates and winnable
acceptable candidates, find that winnable acceptable candidate
This mail was just a draft that I sent by mistake. It contains still errors and
is badly formulated, so you an ignore it. I'll send a new one in a day or two.
Sorry about the confusion,
Juho
On 29.5.2012, at 11.30, Juho Laatu wrote:
Now I have a reasonable definition of Mike Ossipoff's
Juho says:
Maybe the number one on the list of the still unanswered questions is the
following one.
[example+question starts here]
26: A B C
26: B A C
24: C A B
24: C B A
- A and B are Democrats and C is a Republican
How should voters vote after seeing these (quite
On 23.5.2012, at 0.38, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Juho says:
Maybe the number one on the list of the still unanswered questions is the
following one.
[example+question starts here]
26: A B C
26: B A C
24: C A B
24: C B A
- A and B are Democrats and C is a Republican
On 20.5.2012, at 1.00, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You asked if I’d answer questions that you say remain unanswered. Of course.
I answer all questions. If there’s a question that I haven’t answered, then
let me know.
But please be specific.
Maybe the number one on the list of the still
Drive-by comment.
At 04:05 AM 5/21/2012, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 20.5.2012, at 1.00, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You asked if I'd answer questions that you say remain unanswered.
Of course. I answer all questions. If there's a question that I
haven't answered, then let me know.
But please be
On 21.5.2012, at 18.03, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Drive-by comment.
At 04:05 AM 5/21/2012, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 20.5.2012, at 1.00, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You asked if I'd answer questions that you say remain unanswered. Of
course. I answer all questions. If there's a question that I
On 20.5.2012, at 1.00, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
One: No one knows for sure exactly what way of voting (by hir and some
hypothetical same-preferring and same-voting faction) will give the best
outcome.
……….That’s true in Condorcet as well as in Approval.
In Condorcet one can sincerely
On 19.5.2012, at 4.56, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Will it be different with Approval? You be it will.
Agreed. Change of Plurality to Approval in a two-party system will cause
changes in many areas.
I'm going to repeat this: It will be different in regards to the fact that
people who think
On 05/15/2012 09:10 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You continued:
Before you talk about a *need* to literally maximally help the Democrat beat
the Republican, consider what you have said yourself, in response to my
posts. You have said that the voters' overcompromise is a result of their
history
On 19.5.2012, at 7.25, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You continue:
I mean that there could be need for further reforms.
[endquote]
You like to speculate. Speculations aren't really answerable. To what needs
are you referring, in particular?
One key topic was the already discussed possible
Juho:
You asked if I'd answer questions that you say remain unanswered. Of course.
I answer all questions. If there's a question that I haven't answered, then
let me know.
But please be specific.
You said:
My opinion is that the biggest problem of Approval is the difficulty of
On 05/15/2012 09:10 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
In fact, under certain circumstances you, too, would favorite-bury in
Condorcet. I certainly would. (contrary to what I've said in the past,
I
admit)
Suppose that it's a u/a election. The method is Condorcet. It's pretty
much certain that
This started as a thread to talk a bit about Condorcet.
That has faded away, and all I see is trivia about Plurality vs
Approval - too trivial a difference between them to support enough
thoughts to be worth writing this much, even less for reading.
DWK
On May 18, 2012, at 9:56 PM,
Juho:
Would the governments be minority governments or coalition governments?
[endquote]
They'd be popular governments. If it consisted of only one party, I don't
know if it would be the favorite of more than half of the voters. My guess
is that it usually will.
But yes, there could be
On 17.5.2012, at 0.41, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I liked Finland's elegant open list system when I read about it.
But didn't I read that you use d'Hondt? That under-represents small parties.
Sainte-Lague is more perfectly proportional and more fair.
Yes, Finland uses D'Hondt (and D'Hondt
On 14.5.2012, at 22.03, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I wrote and you repled:
I don't see any denial of Gibbard-Satterthwaite or other problems. My
understanding is that many people like Condorcet methods because they think
that their co-operation/defection problems are relatively small (although
On 05/13/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You're in deinal about Gibbard-Satterthwaite.
You're in denial about Condorcet's blatant and full-magnitude
co-operation/defection problem.
And you're in denial about millions of voters' need to litterally
maximally help the Democrat beat the
On 05/13/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You're in deinal about Gibbard-Satterthwaite.
You're in denial about Condorcet's blatant and full-magnitude
co-operation/defection problem.
And you're in denial about millions of voters' need to litterally
maximally help the Democrat beat
Juho:
You wrote:
Yes, I know. I was thinking that good single-winner methods have been
designed to elect single winners. They are not designed to elect
representative bodies from single-winner districts.
[endquote]
I don't know when or where Plurality was first proposed /or used, but I can
On 13.5.2012, at 4.04, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Condorcetists:
I'm a condorcetist in the sense that I think that Condorcet methods are a
pretty good local optimum for some election types.
You want to quibble forever about which rank-count is the best.
No interest to quibble. Unfortunately
Juho:
You said:
I'm a condorcetist in the sense that I think that Condorcet methods are a
pretty good local optimum for some election types.
[endquote]
Condorcet-Criterion methods would be fine for EM. I doubt very much that EM
members would have any favorite-burial need, with
Condorcet, or
On 05/13/2012 03:04 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You're in deinal about Gibbard-Satterthwaite.
You're in denial about Condorcet's blatant and full-magnitude
co-operation/defection problem.
And you're in denial about millions of voters' need to litterally
maximally help the Democrat beat the
On 14.5.2012, at 22.03, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You said:
I note that that would lead to an interesting political system that has
probably not been tested anywhere in the world yet.
[endquote]
Single winner elections have actually been tested! And widely used, Juho! I
kid you not!
Responding because you wrote, but with no authority.
On May 12, 2012, at 9:04 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Condorcetists:
You want to quibble forever about which rank-count is the best.
No - we want to move past that.
You object that Approval doesn't let you help your 1st and 2nd
choices
Condorcetists:
You want to quibble forever about which rank-count is the best.
You object that Approval doesn't let you help your 1st and 2nd choices
against your last choice, while still helping your
1st choice against your 2nd choice.
But the _big_ benefit starts when everyone can support
...@lists.electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Ossipoff
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 7:05 PM
To: election-meth...@electorama.com
Subject: [EM] To Condorcetists:
Condorcetists:
You want to quibble forever about which rank-count is the best
On 5/12/12 10:39 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
I do not know what this email is asking. There’s so much that is not
relevant in it that I don’t know how answer it. It’s a badly-formed
question, so I don’t have any way to answer it.
it's one reason why i plonked Mike. i don't see anything from
29 matches
Mail list logo
