Aaron's words make sense, but perhaps I can do better talking about
two methods that, while using the same ballots but going at the task
in different ways, usually agree as to winner.
IRV looks only at best liked, discards candidate with fewest such
votes, and repeats until a winner remains.
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 3:45 AM
Aaron Armitage Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:11
Aaron,
Just four little points to what Aaron Armitage wrote...
1. snip
You claim, in short, that using the same inputs differently makes them
different inputs, and that producing the same kind of outcome differently
makes it a different outcome.
snip
I believe James was arguing that while a
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 1:19 PM
Aaron,
Just four little
I will discus only IRV vs Condorcet.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:45:47 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
Aaron Armitage Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 1:11 AM
IRV and all
other ranked choice systems ask for the same input from
voters
This is where you make your first mistake. IRV and other ranked
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:30:10 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
...
Actually, the term in the first sentence is majority rule, which, in
actual operation, makes decisions always between two alternatives,
minimized to Yes or No on a single question.
...
It could be made compatible, and the
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 5:35 AM
As I said in the previous message, the origins of IRV are in the Exhaustive
Ballot,
and in the Exhaustive Ballot there is no possibility of looking at the
entire ballot.
Can you provide a source for the claim that the origins of IRV
Aaron,
In an important respect, Condorcet is more natural than IRV: if a majority
prefers Brad over Carter, this preference exists whether the voting system does
anything with it, or even elicits enough information to determine that it
exists.
Yes, except that Condorcet is a criterion and IRV
(Oops, seems I sent this only to James Gilmour. Let's try again. )
James Gilmour wrote:
it would have to look at the entire ballot.
That is a consequence of your interpretation of how the voting system
is supposed to work and what the voting system is supposed to
be doing. But that's not
Kristofer
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:58 AM
James Gilmour wrote:
it would have to look at the entire ballot.
That is a consequence of your interpretation of how the voting
system
is supposed to work and what the voting system is supposed to be
doing. But that's not what IRV
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
To: EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, July 28, 2008, 9:57 AM
Aaron,
In an important respect, Condorcet is
--- On Mon, 7/28/08, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That all ranked ballot voting systems must be assessed
using criteria and tests that can be applied to them all,
is your view, and
it may be the view of others. But I would suggest it
ignores some fundamental differences between
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is a consequence of your interpretation of how the
voting system is supposed to work and what the voting
system is supposed to
be doing. But that's not what IRV is about. As I said
in the previous message, the origins of
HUH!!! How did we get here, where the topic is IRV???
Plurality with runoff: If Plurality fails to produce a winner. then
the leading candidates - usually two - are voted on in a separate
election.
Exhaustive Ballot: If Plurality fails to produce a winner, then the
candidate with the
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 2:26 PM
While I agree that core support is not always
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terry
PROTECTED]
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is a consequence of your interpretation of how the
voting system is supposed
--- On Sun, 7/27/08, Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Sunday, July 27, 2008, 3:32 PM
Different election methods provide different
At 09:30 AM 7/27/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
As I said in the previous message, the origins of IRV are in the
Exhaustive Ballot,
and in the Exhaustive Ballot there is no possibility of looking at
the entire ballot.
Can you provide a source for the claim that the origins of IRV are
in the
At 01:09 PM 6/23/2008, Stéphane Rouillon wrote:
After a nice discussion about keeping cool,
usually a great idea if one can manage it. On the
other hand, sometimes getting a little hot can get things done.
So now can you acknoledge that IRV is better than FPTP ?
I can accpet IRV being worst
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 7:19 PM
But, in the United States, where I live, IRV
isn't replacing pure FPTP. It's replacing Top Two
Runoff (TTR). And it is pretty clear to me that
TTR is superior in just about every way,
I suspect all such judgements must in the end be
At 01:51 PM 6/24/2008, Chris Benham wrote:
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No. That fight is over the Democratic Party nomination and
endorsement. It means that the whole apparatus of the Democratic
Party is devoted to one candidate, which is, of course,
At 02:45 PM 6/24/2008, Juho wrote:
On Jun 24, 2008, at 3:10 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Or if A and B are the strongest candidates then maybe
strategically A=10, B=0, C=0.
In Approval the voter might vote A=1,
B=0, C=0. Or if B and C are the strongest candidates then maybe A=1,
B=1, C=0.
On Jun 25, 2008, at 4:26 , Kathy Dopp wrote:
1. the method of keeping my house cool in summer and warm in winter (I
do set a furnace to 64 degrees F in the winter days and 53 degrees F
at night but the house usually stays much warmer) is low-tech and is
architectural (I did my own architecture)
On Jun 26, 2008, at 0:54 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Note that the utilities of B and C were 123 and 99. I didn't anchor
the scale in any way but numbers around 100 could still be above
average politician.
Above average among what sample? Certainly not this one!
The sample was the
- Original Message
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED]; EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June, 2008 10:01:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting (Chris Benham)
At 12:55 AM 6/23/2008
Hello,
Continuing my commentry on Kathy Dopp's anti-IRV paper, under
Flaws of Instant Runoff Voting we find:
13.
voters may not be allowed to participate in the final selection round of an IRV
election
because all their choices were eliminated before the last counting round.
The only way
At 12:55 AM 6/23/2008, Chris Benham wrote:
Kathy,
Imagine that Approval is used to elect the US President and
as in the current campaign the Republicans are fielding one
candidate, McCain. Does that mean that the big fight for the
Democrat nomination between Clinton and Obama we've just
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:43 PM,
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:45:56 +0300
From: Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting
On Jun 24, 2008, at 7:41 , Kathy Dopp wrote:
How does the grass in my lawn stay green when I never water or irrigate it
and I
At 12:55 AM 6/23/2008, Chris Benham wrote:
Kathy,
Imagine that Approval is used to elect the US President and
as in the current campaign the Republicans are fielding one
candidate, McCain. Does that mean that the big fight for the
Democrat nomination between Clinton and Obama we've just
Kathy,
I choose my words carefully.
You managed to invent a really bad voting method (asking voters for
ratings and then converting their ratings to approval/disapproval by
your new voting method) and applied your method of conversions to your
own example, but it has nothing to do with either
] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting (Chris
Benham)
Chris,
You example clearly does not provide an example of approval voting
being subjected to the spoiler effect.
You managed to invent a really bad voting method (asking voters for
ratings and then converting their ratings to approval/disapproval
Kathy Dopp Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 4:53 AM
I try not to waste time
on stupid ideas and I've already wasted over 6 weeks of this
year considering IRV which is an incredibly stupid voting
method at first glance after 15 minutes of study IMO.
So what does this tell us about the many
Chris,
This is what you are now claiming is a fairness condition:
... that to be fair, the winner of an election must not change with
the introduction of a new nonwinning candidate, even if the voters
change their votes for the prior (old) candidates.
As a voter, I would object to this fairness
On Jun 22, 2008, at 22:33 , Kathy Dopp wrote:
In fact, I would oppose any voting method which did not violate
Chris' new condition that even when voters change their votes, the
winner should stay the same.
Although Chris' voters changed their vote they didn't change their
opinions between
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Terry Bouricius [EMAIL PROTECTED];
election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting (Chris
Benham)
At 12:35 PM 6/22/2008, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Ms. Dopp has requested a clearer example of how
Tells us little since this is one person's opinion.
IRV lets voters state their desires more completely than Plurality and is
often better at picking a winner - but sometimes fails badly, so:
Not too bad when you do not know of better.
I join Kathy in wantng to move to better.
DWK
On Sun,
At 01:17 PM 6/22/2008, James Gilmour wrote:
Kathy Dopp Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 4:53 AM
I try not to waste time
on stupid ideas and I've already wasted over 6 weeks of this
year considering IRV which is an incredibly stupid voting
method at first glance after 15 minutes of study IMO.
So
Chris,
You example clearly does not provide an example of approval voting
being subjected to the spoiler effect.
You managed to invent a really bad voting method (asking voters for
ratings and then converting their ratings to approval/disapproval by
your new voting method) and applied your
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting -
Since I regard? IRV (the Alternative Vote,?unlimited strict
ranking?version) as
one of? the good methods, the best in my judgement of the methods
/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf
James
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chris Benham
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:07 AM
To: EM
Cc: Kathy Dopp
Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff
Voting - Not What
41 matches
Mail list logo
