Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 25, 2007, at 17:55 , Jobst Heitzig wrote: > Dear Juho! > > You wrote: > >> I could imagine a voting system that might address this issue for >> larger groups, but it isn't Range. >> >> One could have elections that take into account e.g. >> proportionality in time (that could be called

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

Dear Juho! You wrote: > I could imagine a voting system that might address this issue for larger > groups, but it isn't Range. > > One could have elections that take into account e.g. proportionality in time > (that could be called one kind of reciprocity) (favour a republican after a > demo

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

At 01:46 AM 12/23/2007, rob brown wrote: >Well, I once again mention the 2000 election. Someone who likes >Nader best, Gore second best, and Bush the least would probably say >"Oh cool! Before, I couldn't say that I liked Nader best because it >would take my vote away from Gore who really needs

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 25, 2007, at 0:28 , rob brown wrote: > In the case of the stinger, I was asking if you knew of any > morphological (not behavioral) feature of a non-eusocial animal > that kills the animal when used. The only ones I can think of are > part of the reproductive process ( i.e. male spid

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

rob brown > Sent: 24 December 2007 22:01 > So some old guy I've never heard of discredited Dawkins? I suggest you take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson and some of the other 63,000 webpage references for "Edward O Wilson". James Gilmour wrote: > > As for voting be

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 24, 2007 1:22 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 24, 2007, at 17:34 , rob brown wrote: > > When a bee stings, it kills the bee. Do you know of anything like that in > an animal that reproduces directly? > > Yes, unfortunately at the very moment many soldiers at their best > repro

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 24, 2007 10:31 AM, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > rob brown > Sent: 24 December 2007 15:35 > > (for what it's worth, I'm actually working on an article on > > this stuff, independent from voting theory. Bees, and > > understanding the difference between their motivations and >

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 24, 2007, at 17:34 , rob brown wrote: It's easy to apply your intuition about human behavior to other animals, but if you apply it to non-reproducing bees, you are making a big mistake. It just doesn't apply. I try to map human concepts to bees and bee concepts to humans and gener

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

rob brown > Sent: 24 December 2007 15:35 > (for what it's worth, I'm actually working on an article on > this stuff, independent from voting theory. Bees, and > understanding the difference between their motivations and > more typical animal motivations, is what inspired my interest > in evolu

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 24, 2007 12:34 AM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The non-reproducing worker bees are probably not completely non-selfish. I'm > sure they push the next worker bee aside when they want to perform some > important task within the hive > Well, apologies if I am straying too far into evoluti

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 24, 2007, at 1:16 , rob brown wrote: On Dec 23, 2007 2:00 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Works with humans too. Three friends living in different places might agree to meet at a place that has equal distance to all three homes. Or they might select a place that minimizes the sum

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 23, 2007 2:00 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Works with humans too. Three friends living in different places might > agree to meet at a place that has equal distance to all three homes. Or they > might select a place that minimizes the sum of the distances (maybe they > will share th

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 23, 2007, at 22:52 , rob brown wrote: On Dec 23, 2007 10:49 AM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Now bak to the question. Majority vote may often not yield the optimum outcome (from some chosen high level theoretical viewpoint) but majority vote may well be considered to be the best practi

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 23, 2007 10:49 AM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now bak to the question. Majority vote may often not yield the > optimum outcome (from some chosen high level theoretical viewpoint) > but majority vote may well be considered to be the best practical > method for competitive two candidat

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 23, 2007 11:43 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And then Gore loses, just like he did with Plurality. > > But what other voters do also matters. > Surely you understood that I had considered that others might do the same thing. The point is, the issue of vote splitting wit

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:46:17 -0800 rob brown wrote: > On Dec 22, 2007 8:04 PM, Jan Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > ... > > Yes, some people might vote weak preferences in their first Range > Voting election, then "learn their lesson" when their preferenc

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 23, 2007, at 3:39 , rob brown wrote: > Say you've got an election for two candidates. > Let's further assume that there are a large enough number of voters > that we can assume that most don't know one another. This isn't a > pizza party or a local club, but a large scale vote. Also

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 22, 2007 8:04 PM, Jan Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And then they'd probably stop by his house on the way home and > > burn it to the ground. > > :-) A good illustration of people having a "strong preference", eh? :-) > > > G - [Z] voters wouldn't care as much, and would tend to concentr

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

At 01:32 AM 12/22/2007, rob brown wrote: >Your example is for more than two candidates. Well, it might seem that way. But there are really only two choices that make any sense. The third pizza type was in there simply to make the normalization scores make sense. If it's not there, there is a pr

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 21, 2007 1:02 PM, rob brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 21, 2007 7:41 AM, Jan Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's another, similar scenario. The choices are: > > A. All people pay income tax in proportion to their income. > > B. People whose last names begin with A through F p

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

Just a quick followup to Abd, since I think my message may have gotten lost in a long post of interspersed replies. I still want to ask a very, very simple question, and I don't think you answered it. But this time I will go to some extra effort to make sure it is interpreted for the simple quest

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 21, 2007 8:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:59 PM 12/20/2007, rob brown wrote: > >My understanding has been that in a simple two candidate election, > >there isn't any need for alternative election methods, and all the > >issues that condorcet/approval/range etc

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

At 01:59 PM 12/20/2007, rob brown wrote: >My understanding has been that in a simple two candidate election, >there isn't any need for alternative election methods, and all the >issues that condorcet/approval/range etc attempt to solve simply >disappear. A plain old majority vote is "perfect", as

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:59 , rob brown wrote: > I'm trying, really hard, > to understand where Range Voting fans are coming from. Maybe idealism. Maybe just defending something they find positive. I'm not one so I can't really tell. Or in some sense I am. Range is cool, but I don't claim it wou

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

Ok, no intention to say that our mails would be somehow incompatible. Median is perfect for many uses. Juho On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:08 , rob brown wrote: > On Dec 20, 2007 10:58 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:24 , rob brown wrote: > >> Median is often a nice way to

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 21, 2007 7:41 AM, Jan Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I congratulate you for focusing on some questions that underlie the > endless debates about which is the "best", "fairest", etc. voting > method. > Cool. glad to see someone gets where I'm coming from. :) > To restate th

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 21, 2007, at 7:41 AM, Jan Kok wrote: > I personally have voted on bylaws or platform issues at political > conventions, where I wanted to cast a weak vote rather than a strong > yes or no vote. The reason was that I had only a weak opinion, and > would have preferred to let those with stron

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

Hi Rob, I congratulate you for focusing on some questions that underlie the endless debates about which is the "best", "fairest", etc. voting method. To restate the questions my own way: What do we _mean_ by "best", "fairest", "most democratic", etc. Is there some standard (criterion, figure of m

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:59 PM, rob brown wrote: > And all I wanted to know was, can we agree that we can be "always > fair" in a case where there are only two candidates? > > My understanding is that Arrow believed that a two candidate election > was trivially solvable, by a simple majority vote.

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

sendet: 21.12.07 00:41:13 > An: "rob brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Betreff: RE: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election > > "The reason is simple: no majoritarian method can ever be democratic because > it allows 51% o

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think there is no single definition of democracy in the sense that > it would determine which voting method is the best (for all > elections). Yeah, not looking for that. There is a reason I restricted it to one simple type of election

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 20, 2007 8:32 PM, Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, what point were you getting at other than if there's only one issue > you can use median to decide the one issue? > > My point is that the example isn't useful. In real elections there are more > alternatives than "set the va

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 20, 2007 10:58 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:24 , rob brown wrote: > Median is often a nice way to pick the best best value, but as > discussed in other mails it is not always possible to set a numeric > value to solve a question. Of course it isn't. Who said

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 21, 2007, at 3:24 , rob brown wrote: > Let's say it is a vote for a number, > for instance we have a club, and we want to have vote on how much our > monthly dues will be. We decide to have everyone write down their > preferred number, and then select the median value. (you could do the >

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

I think there is no single definition of democracy in the sense that it would determine which voting method is the best (for all elections). Majority, Condorcet and random ballot are good answers but maybe for different questions (in some special cases even Range could be a correct answer).

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rob brown Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election On Dec 20, 2007 7:34 PM, Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 20, 2007 7:34 PM, Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How do you handle the more important question "how should dues be spent?" Whether that is a more important question or not is beside the point. It is a different question. Maybe you could have more votes, deciding the relative pe

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

>>Let me throw this one out there. Let's say it is a vote for a number, for instance we have a club, and we want to have vote on how much our monthly dues will be. We decide to have everyone write down their preferred number, and then select the median value. (you could do the interpolated media

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

On Dec 20, 2007 3:41 PM, Ian Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "The reason is simple: no majoritarian method can ever be democratic because >> it allows 51% of the electorate to consistently keep the other 49% of the >> electorate from having any power at all" > > Perhaps you have a different

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

od. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jobst Heitzig Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:38 PM To: rob brown Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election Dear Rob! As you may expect, I am not at all of the o

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

Dear Rob! As you may expect, I am not at all of the opinion that majority rule is perfect, no matter how few options there are. The reason is simple: no majoritarian method can ever be democratic because it allows 51% of the electorate to consistently keep the other 49% of the electorate from

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

2007 2:00 PM To: Ian Fellows Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election I was going to post a reply to the list but noticed your reply was just to me. (bummer, I was kinda hoping you'd go on record with that opinion) Yes I am no fan of range voting, and it is a range

Re: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

] Subject: [Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election My understanding has been that in a simple two candidate election, there isn't any need for alternative election methods, and all the issues that condorcet/approval/range etc attempt to solve simply disappear. A plain old majority vote

[Election-Methods] Simple two candidate election

My understanding has been that in a simple two candidate election, there isn't any need for alternative election methods, and all the issues that condorcet/approval/range etc attempt to solve simply disappear. A plain old majority vote is "perfect", as long as there really are only two candidates.