Kristofer, Fred and Jameson,
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> This can also be used to validate Warren's proof. Say that we have
> one set of ballots X_a, where A is the unique winner, and another
> set of ballots X_b, where A is not the unique winner. Then by
> permuting X_a into X_b one vote at a
Good Morning, JQ
re: "... I do not think that you can ... conclude that any method
which does not reach all those goals (i.e., all voters being
able to participate in meaningful fashion) is thereby
useless. In fact, I think that such imperfect methods are
necessary stepping
(Resubmitting to the list as Michael Allan suggested :-)
Michael Allan wrote:
Warren Smith wrote:
--no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election. This
is true in any election method which is capable of having at least
two outcomes.
Proof: simply change ballots one by one until the
2011/8/31 Fred Gohlke
> Good Afternoon, Mr. Quinn
>
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 @ 07:25:31 you cited a portion of Michael Allan's Sun,
> 28 Aug 2011 @ 23:24:48 post to me, to wit:
>
>
> "... But if we (this is my hope) can cogently demonstrate this
> failing to the experts in this list, especially
Good Afternoon, Mr. Quinn
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 @ 07:25:31 you cited a portion of Michael Allan's
Sun, 28 Aug 2011 @ 23:24:48 post to me, to wit:
"... But if we (this is my hope) can cogently demonstrate this
failing to the experts in this list, especially in terms of
the voting mechani
Thanks for the link to Rousseau, Mike. I haven't read it, but need to.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Jameson, Jonathan and Fred,
Jameson Quinn wrote:
> ...all of which merely serve to minimize its practical importance,
> not to assail its mathematical validity.
I guess the critique is not aimed so much at the formal, mathematical
validity of the method, as its actual validity in the real world.
Good Afternoon, Michael
re: "... every voter has that right (to influence the choice of
candidates and the issues on which they vote), but is
forever cheated of it precisely because the election method
grants no electoral power whatsoever to the voter, but
instead renders his
> From: matt welland
> To: EM Methods
> Subject: Re: [EM] the "meaning" of a vote (or lack thereof) and a
> (new?) metric for voting systems
>
> Here in the US we have these things called "polls" which happen
> periodically prior to the real
On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:25 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> > NOT true, for the vote, without the voter's vote, could be a tie - and
> > the voter's vote mattering.
>
> That notion of effect has several drawbacks:
>
> ...all of which merely serve to minimize its practical importanc
>
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> > NOT true, for the vote, without the voter's vote, could be a tie - and
> > the voter's vote mattering.
>
> That notion of effect has several drawbacks:
>
...all of which merely serve to minimize its practical importance, not to
assail its mathematical validity.
> ..
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 23:24 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> Matt, Dave and Fred,
>
> > > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant ...
> > >
> > > The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote
> > > is the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an
>
Matt, Dave and Fred,
> > > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant ...
> >
> > The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote
> > is the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an
> > electoral issue. Do you mean:
> > (a) What the person thinks is
> An example, due to Samuel Merrill (of Brams, Fishburn, and
> Merrill fame), simply normalizes the
> scores on each range ballot the same way that we convert a
> garden variety normal random variable into
> a standard one: i.e. on each ballot subtract the mean (of scores
> on that ballot) and
Good Afternoon, Michael
re: "Warren Smith and Fred Gohlke had similar expectations."
I had no expectation that anyone's vote would be worth a tinker's dam.
If anything I wrote gave a different impression, I erred and I apologize
for it.
Fred Gohlke
Election-Methods mailing list - see ht
On Aug 28, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
Matt and Dave,
Matt Welland wrote:
The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless
to discuss. ...
The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote is
the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard
On Sun, 2011-08-28 at 04:32 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> Matt and Dave,
>
> Matt Welland wrote:
> > The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless
> > to discuss. ...
>
> The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote is
> the formal expression of what a p
Matt and Dave,
Matt Welland wrote:
> The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless
> to discuss. ...
The individual vote itself is irrelevant? We know that the vote is
the formal expression of what a person thinks in regard to an
electoral issue. Do you mean:
(a) What
On Sat, 2011-08-27 at 16:22 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> > > But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
> > > will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
> > > otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> > TRULY, thi
On Aug 27, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
nD votes. If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
by creating a majority with
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
> example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
> nD votes. If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
> by creating a majority with your vote.
What do nR and nD stand for?
> O
On Aug 27, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
Dave Ketchum wrote:
TRULY, this demonstrates lack of unde
> > But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
> > will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
> > otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> TRULY, this demonstrates lack of understanding of cause and effect.
>
> IF th
On 27.8.2011, at 17.38, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>
>> On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>>>
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
> But back to a possible
On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
>> On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>>
>>> On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
>>>
But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if
you
On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>
>> On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
>>
>>> But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if
>>> you think that candidate X would
>>> vote like you on a rando
Warren Smith wrote:
> --no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election. This
> is true in any election method which is capable of having at least
> two outcomes.
> Proof: simply change ballots one by one until the outcome changes.
> At the moment it changes, that single ballot changed
On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
>
>> But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if
>> you think that candidate X would
>> vote like you on a random issue with probability p percent, then you could
>> gi
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
> But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if you
> think that candidate X would
> vote like you on a random issue with probability p percent, then you could
> give candidate X a score that
> is p percent of the way b
On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:07 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
> Second, I want to get at the heart of the incommensurability complaint: in
> most elections some voters
> will have a much greater stake in the outcome than others. For some it may
> be a life or death issue; if X
> is elected your frien
all candidates that might pardon or commute your
friend's death sentence, and
give bottom rating to all recent former governors of Texas and their ilk.
- Original Message -
From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:38 am
Subject: Re: [EM] the "meaning&quo
fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Here's a link to Jobst's definitive posting on individual and social
utility:
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-February/019631.html
Also, I would like to make another comment in support of Warren's
thesis that cardinal range sco
On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:16 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>> :
>>>
>>> >> Lundell:
>>> >> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
>>> >> has a pragmatic/operational "meaning" as a function of its use in
>>> >> determining a winner.
>>> >>
>>> >> But but it's an unwarran
Hi,
It seems to me all Warren is saying is that a more practical definition
of meaning would be a practical one. Arrow doesn't care about whether
the definition is practical, and as you'd then expect it doesn't happen
to be all that practical.
The Arrow/Tideman view doesn't even care what the ele
Here's a link to Jobst's definitive posting on individual and social utility:
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-February/019631.html
Also, I would like to make another comment in support of Warren's thesis that
cardinal range scores are
as meaningful or
On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>
> 2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell
>> On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
>>
>> >> Lundell:
>> >> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with th
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>
>
> 2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell
>
>> On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
>>
>> >> Lundell:
>> >> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
>> has a pragmatic/operational "
On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>
> 2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
>
> >> Lundell:
> >> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
> >> has a pragmatic/operational "meaning" as a function of its us
2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell
> On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
>
> >> Lundell:
> >> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
> has a pragmatic/operational "meaning" as a function of its use in
> determining a winner.
> >>
> >> But but it's an unwarran
On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
>> Lundell:
>> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot has
>> a pragmatic/operational "meaning" as a function of its use in determining a
>> winner.
>>
>> But but it's an unwarranted leap from that claim to use the
A SAD weakness about what is being said.
On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Fred Gohlke wrote:
Michael Allan wrote:
"But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you
Michael Allan wrote:
"But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?"
To which Warren Smith responded:
"--no. A single ballot can change the outcom
> Lundell:
> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot has a
> pragmatic/operational "meaning" as a function of its use in determining a
> winner.
>
> But but it's an unwarranted leap from that claim to use the ballot scores as
> a measure of utility. Arrows objecti
On Aug 23, 2011, at 4:07 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
> It seems to me that Arrow must want a unique generic meaning that people can
> relate to independent of
> the voting system. Perhaps he is right that ordinal information fits that
> criterion slightly better than
> cardinal information, b
It seems to me that Arrow must want a unique generic meaning that people can
relate to independent of
the voting system. Perhaps he is right that ordinal information fits that
criterion slightly better than
cardinal information, but as Warren says, what really matters is the
operational meani
On Aug 21, 2011, at 5:06 PM, Warren Smith wrote:
> Kenneth Arrow has worried that range-voting-type "score" votes might have no
> or
> unclear-to-Arrow "meaning." In contrast, he considers rank-ordering-style
> votes to have a clear meaning.
> Nic Tideman has also expressed similar worries in em
>Michael Allan:
The effect however of a single ballot is exactly zero. It cannot
change the outcome of the election, or anything else in the objective
world.
--no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election.
This is true in any election method which is capable of having at
least two o
Warren Smith wrote:
> Kenneth Arrow has worried that range-voting-type "score" votes might have no
> or
> unclear-to-Arrow "meaning." In contrast, he considers rank-ordering-style
> votes to have a clear meaning.
> Nic Tideman has also expressed similar worries in email, but now about
> the "lack
Kenneth Arrow has worried that range-voting-type "score" votes might have no or
unclear-to-Arrow "meaning." In contrast, he considers rank-ordering-style
votes to have a clear meaning.
Nic Tideman has also expressed similar worries in email, but now about
the "lack of meaning" of an approval-style
49 matches
Mail list logo
