lmour wrote:
Dancing on E-voting’s grave
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1227&tag=nl.e019
Election loser: touch-screen voting
http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1185482.html
JG
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Hal
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:16:53 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines
Regrettably James is making an incorrect analysis of the problem.
I believe that is a mischaracterization because James&#
at*, I would
> suggest that the the effect holds true.
>
> * (unless the vote happens to be for a number, such as a budgetin
> which case selecting the median preferred value is roughly
equivalent to
> holding a Condorcet vote on an infinite number of "candidate values&quo
Once the condorcet winner can credibilly claim to be one of the top-2,
then the condorcet primary almost becomes the final election.
Certainly, winning the condorcet primary would be a major boost to any
candidate.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 10
ue in such.
And no value in runoffs - Plurality needs runoffs because of the way
voters cannot express their thoughts - but Condorcet has no similar problem.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:28:55 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:08:19 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:25 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My goal is using Condorcet, but recognizing that everything costs money, wo
we need to be careful as to expenses.
Thus I see:
Condorcet as the election
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:05:28 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
My goal is using Condorcet, but recognizing that everything costs
money, wo we need to be careful as to expenses.
Thus I see:
Condorcet as the election method.
But then see no value in a "cond
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:24:37 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The idea of having a Condorcet party is to gradually transform Plurality
elections into Condorcet elections.
Disturbing existing elections by marrying in som
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:57:01 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
> On 9/29/08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Quoting Michael Allan:
=
> We've coded something like that already, for a similar purpose. I'm
> not sure our voting mechanism alwa
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:45:14 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
For some reason, I didn't receive Dave Ketchum's reply to my post about
the Condorcet party. So let's try this again, indeed.
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:05:28 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:19:52 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
When there is a cycle (3 or more in a near tie) there could be demos
of whatever resolution procedures please someone.
I was never concerned with a final decision. I doubt these are in
your ballpark:
I see the
Michael is into cascade voting. I joined this thread because Condorcet got
mentioned, and will stay with that detail
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:56:36 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I see the Condorcet phantom as going thru the same motions as a real
primary or general election
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:52:31 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Cycles happen, and perhaps should be reported, but are NOT a reason for he
system to do anything special beyond normal analysis and reporting.
Of course reporting should e based on total voting, thus updated as soon
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:12:21 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I do not understand 'no resolution':
By time N1 there have been 10 votes in the poll - to analyze as a complete
Condorcet election.
By time N2 there have been 2 more, for a total of 12 to analyze as if a
ommon sense.
Cheers,
Kathy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Me
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:45:16 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ANYTHING cam get tampered with if enough doors are left ajar, including
paper ballots (such as discarding, editing, or replacing some).
True, but paper ballot
ving.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: "James Gilmour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Dave Ketchum'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:56:01 -0400 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
In simulation there is value, and sometimes excessive temptation, in
tailoring test cases to favor a desired result.
Maybe try an open simulator. Make the "electorate engine" pluggable
so experimente
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:24:09 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More complete defenses are possible with electronics.
Totally FALSE statement.
Sad that we cannot look at the same reality!
Conceded that rogue programmers
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:59:51 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:37 PM
Plurality does fine with two candidates, or with one obvious
winner over others.
I am horrified to read this statement on this list. It is completely and
utterly unt
On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:34:51 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> We have to be doing different topics.
I'm afraid that Dave and James Gilmour are indeed "doing different
topics". I gather that, for Dave, it is taken for granted that elections
are held to fill
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:22:37 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 1:16 AM
We have to be doing different topics.
Actually we seem together on topics, but you reacted to what you took as a
cue statement without noticing what I was saying. Perhaps
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:16:39 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In fact some computer scientists just recently mathematically PROVED
that it is impossible to even verify that the certified software is
actually running on a
m are orthogonal.
That said, voting methods that are not countable in precincts (eg. IRV)
pose a very large challenge to providing for election integrity. This,
in addition to other significant faults of IRV, causes me to oppose IRV..
I notice that some supporters of Condorcet voting (Dave Ketch
truction such as the
3-ballot array.
Not mentioned above is ability for those up to it to analyze the system
programming in whatever detail they see as valuable.
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead A
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:18:50 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On 10/9/08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there is a near tie among three or more, they often disagree but
usually get one of the leaders - matters little since the leaders were about
equally deserving.
This was part
, Dave Ketchum wrote:
I suggest a two-step resolution:
Agree to a truce between Condorcet and Range, while they dispose of
IRV as being less capable than Condorcet.
Then go back to the war between Condorcet and Range.
Condorcet uses essentially the same ballot as IRV, with essentially the
) Chris Benham wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I started this thread to compare IRV vs Condorcet, believing that IRV is
provably less capable and deserves discarding.
Dave,
Comparing a decisive method with a criterion is a bit like comparing a
person with "virtue". As soon as you tel
s that are Condorcet compliant, and many others that aren't
(complying with other criteria that some believe are more crucial). The
issue separating the various Condorcet methods is how you find a winner
when there is no Condorcet winner.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
Fro
t.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:49:41 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
On 10/9/08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there is a near tie among three or more, they often disagree but
usually get one of the leaders - matters little since the leaders
were
27;t get to vote on the restrictions
of civil rights directly. It was handled by Congress.
Using majority rule?
That someone was me.
Sorry, Greg didn't include your name in his post (or I couldn't find
it).
No need to be sorry.
Yours, Jobst
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityc
and therefore bad (c).
>
> Which system do you think would work best that is actually achievable?
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:08:32 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I suggest a two-step resolution:
Agree to a truce between Condorcet and Range, while they dispose
of IRV as being less capable than Condorcet.
Then go back to the war between Condorcet and Range
Letting voters vote ahead of election day is done in some states for
necessary absentees, or generally, but complicates all of the protections
against fraud.
I think you need to prove you have some 'valid reason' to vote early.
Anyway, I know there are some restrictions that m
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:33:13 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In FPTP parties NEED primaries - a party cannot afford to divide its
members' votes among multiple candidates.
Well, in the UK, the party leadership deci
yconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 02:14:29 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do we measure 'sincere'? In most places in the US N backers place a
candidate on a party primary ballot, and N2 (usually a larger number)
directl
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:20:07 -0300 Diego Santos wrote:
>
> 2008/10/18 Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>
> Given a Condorcet cycle, how does anyone justify awarding a winner
> outside?
>
> True that deciding the
press their desires.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing l
Parties could not tolerate voters making THEIR OWN choices - but it took
three strikes to fire Vito!
Original Message
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:32:59 -0400
From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This law had what seems like a simple purpose - Republicans and Democrat
) Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Dave,
--- En date de : Sam 18.10.08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
Given a Condorcet cycle, how does anyone justify awarding a
winner outside?
Two possibilities:
1. to simplify the definition of the method
2. to satisfy other strategy criteria.
Not so easy that the election gets swamped with candidates.
Not so hard that there are no candidates.
After losing in the primary, can a candidate run independent in the general
election? Perhaps, with proper petition signatures.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.
d
towards them.
Better might be a weighted vote (but who'd set the weights?).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
red and that voters in compliant states get - go beat
on the laggard states. The intent is to expedite full compliance without
demanding such.
DWK
--Bob
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Was: Re: [EM] Making a Bad Thing Worse
Is the Electoral College recognized as having lived ot its useful
life? If
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://e
laggard states.
This is exactly what I'm referring to. I was specifically *not* saying
that Condorcet-compliant methods themselves could violate
one-person-one-vote. That's not the case.
--Bob
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:51:55 -0700 Bob Richard wrote:
>
atural tendency to seek our own interest. We must
make self-interest a tool in our arsenal rather than leaving it for
others to wield against us.
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
ery sceptical of any proposal that involves aggregating different
voting methods in various subjurisdictions into a single result.
Thanks in advance.
--Bob
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
keep the extra strength the EC has given them.
Note that such scaling could be applied to the contents of N*N arrays.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not
TP voters could have had similar thoughts, but had no way to
express them.
Someone please show me the NxN matrix that Dave Ketchum would use to
combine these votes with the other votes that had been cast on ranked
ballots.
Condorcet N*N matrices are simply added together, element by elemen
, and
that the reason is that it's less vulnerable to strategy (order reversal
and favorite betrayal). Also, Schulze(wv) meet some criteria that
Schulze(margins) do not, so the Schulze method's defined to use wv (as
far as I know).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/w
ttee member can permit another committee member to act for them. I
am sure this is a committee rules topic - perhaps the rule should limit haw
many other members one can act for - less than what this chair possessed.
...
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
D
y most).
The methods that inspired this missive claim to offer some, possible
valuable, benefits - at a cost that may be prohibitive - leave them to
audiences who agree the benefits are worth the cost.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halste
runoffs.
DWK
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 09:00:56 -0300 Diego Santos wrote:
>
> 2008/11/2 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
> A few thoughts:
> Plurality or Approval cannot fill need.
&
, there wouldn't be an issue, as
it would require 2 things to happen at once. First, there would need
to be an extremely close national election and also an extremely close
State vote.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owe
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
With the EC it seems standard to do Plurality - a method with
weaknesses most of us in EM recognize.
Let's do a Constitutional amendment to move up.
I propose Condorcet. One advantage is that states
onses.
FYI, the plaintiff's characterizes Arrow's theorem on p. 3 of this doc:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/DefendantsDocs/11SuplementaryReplyMemoinSupportofMotionforSummaryJudgment.pdf
Thank you.
Kathy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave
8) of my paper, I explain how the electoral
college should be combined with Condorcet voting:
I would not combine, but would try for the best we could with an amendment.
Markus Schulze
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Oweg
s one of many ways to show how IRV unequally treats
voters and see if the attorneys use it or not.
Thanks.
Kathy
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Topic below is monotonicity, which seems discardable as a side issue.
Of more importance is IRV's NO
hod you like and IRV supporters help
them on grounds like it fails Later-no-Harm, Later-no-Help, and
probably mono-add-top?
Chris Benham
Dave Ketchum wrote (Fri.Nov.7):
Perhaps this could get some useful muscle by adding such as:
9 B>A
Now we have 34 voting B>A. Enough that they
ately eliminated under two-round runoff rules as well. Plurality and
Two-round runoffs are the two systems the plaintiffs are seeking to
preserve, while "constitutionally" prohibiting Condorcet (as well as IRV).
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Ketchum"
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:58:30 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think an NPV-style gradual change would have a greater chance of
succeeding than would a constitutional amendment. The constitutional
ll of that in
deciding on a winner - as to C and D the possibilities are:
C>D
D>C
C=D = the voter indicates equal liking by giving them the same rank
or by ranking neither.
DWK
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 18:54:27 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Sunday, November
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 23:28:01 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 10:59 PM
I have not inspected the affidavits for completeness or
correctness. I am only comparing the methods.
Assuming IRV's rules result in declaring A or B winner, it would not
the "remaining" candidates. (One could eliminate more than one candidate at different
rounds.)
Juho
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:37:35 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:45:38 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
...
States have differing collections of candidates:
In theory, could demand there be a single national list. More
practical to
ers of
preferences would be a "fatal" flaw in IRV, would it
not also be a "fatal" flaw in Condorcet counting, and indeed in any other
voting system where voters may express different numbers
of preferences?
James Gilmour
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpa
g how one could eliminate some of the problems of sequential elimination
(e.g. by using approval and avoid losing the "eliminated" candidates).)
Juho
--- On Mon, 10/11/08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EM]
together in one final location for analysis.
DWK
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:39:53 + (GMT) Juho Laatu wrote:
Yes, IRV is a good example. Most Condorcet methods do the
comparisons/evaluation just once (when all the candidates are in the same
situation).
Juho
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Dave Ketchum
be
handled by considering each voter's ballot as a Condorcet matrix, then
merging that in as above. In extreme case (each voter names a different
write-in), that would make the matrix expand by a lot, but if that's a
concern, sparse representation formats can be used.
--
[EMAIL PROTE
gets discarded.
DWK
Juho
--- On Tue, 11/11/08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [EM] Three rounds
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Date: Tuesday, 11 November, 2008, 6:43 PM
Not clear to
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:50:22 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
...
Assuming that this represents 100 votes for A then 100 A>C is
represented. If B was also in the matrix there would be 100 A>B.
This last 100 fails to show up below:
Oops. Yes, that's
s mayors and governors.
While proportional representation could be better for legislatures,
not clear why that should affect current debate.
Reason #7: IRV has political momentum
This seems true - but not more important than looking for and trying to do
what is best.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.
s (in terms of
scattering their votes around), and the results are
disastrous - and not just for the French in this case - we all had to live
with the political consequences of this election.
James Gilmour
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 1
nstitution. It is a tragedy that so few
of us recognize (or are willing to acknowledge) that we have
relinquished our right to govern ourselves to unknown people who
proclaim themselves our agents.
...
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 10
ested interest and operating to the detriment of the
humans among us.
Fred
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
I
Given an IRV election, the question "how would this election have
turned out if plurality had been used" cannot be answered by counting
the IRV first choices.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, N
t would be called a 'tombstone mentality'.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for ju
lable. IRV data from San Francisco, Burlington, and Pierce County.
STV data from Cambridge and Ireland. Preferential presidential polls
from Ireland. And more. I'm in the process of making it all available
online in a uniform format.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL
es.) Then the voter
rates the frontrunners.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
My point was ONLY that the voter could have equal feeling as to the
frontrunners. Here Abd offers some thought on that topic.
DWK
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:53:09 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:31 PM 12/4/2008, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Favored frontrunner? Trying to add some thought
he
> Votes (Open Voting or Approval). It addresses the big problem that most
> people give as an objection to Approval, but it is very much like
> Approval. It's roughly as efficient as Condorcet methods with social
> utility.
>
> Ultimately, I prefer Range with explicit A
onger any outside the 5.
James Gilmour
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for ju
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:39:31 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 3:51 AM
Responding to one thought for IRV vs C (Condorcet):
My comments were not specific to "IRV versus Condorcet".
JG had written
When there is no majority winner the
nner - no doubt. But effective President - never!
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 4:24 AM
Such a weak Condorcet winner would also be unlikely.
Second preferences?
That 5% would have to avoid the two strong candidates.
The other two have to avoid voting for each o
g the candidate "wins by a majority" when no such actual solid
majority needs to exist.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Ketchum"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2
D
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:02:09 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:23 AM
Disturbing that you would consider clear wins by a majority to be
objectionable.
Ok, I did not say it clearly.
Obvious need is to package arguments such that they are sala
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:05:56 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:54 PM
Ok, I did not say it clearly.
Obvious need is to package arguments such that they are salable.
Take the one about a Condorcet winner with no first preferences. Ugly
thought,
ach other candidate the CW wins more than half of these
comparisons. For example, with 5 serious contenders the CW has to average
above third rank.
If a cycle, each member has to qualify as a CW relative to each candidate
outside the cycle.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnec
ld offer useful thought.
James
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
l.
James
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods maili
n the candidate list.
Juho
--- On Fri, 26/12/08, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:55:23 - James Gilmour wrote:
Incidentally, my personal view is that there should be
no provision for "write-ins" at all in public
elections. If I am not
prepared to declare m
fferent in other States?
James
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
very modest number of
signatures. Or have I misunderstood something?
> James
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
My memory says you described procedures used in the UK when something was
needed to add new candidates after nomination deadlines.
I cannot find such tonight, so proceed for US needs without assuming such.
DWK
In Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:38:50 - James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > S
n would be decisive using a reasonable definition of a
"majority vote" (using RRONR's standard definition that EXCLUDES
abstentions in determining a majority threshold.)
Terry Bouricius
...
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum
I've ever seen from Bouricius, it's word manipulation to try
> to take a text and make it say the exact opposite of what it plainly says.
>
> I'd thought that he was above that, but, apparently not.
>
> The public will *not* be fooled when the issue
ot do runoffs with Condorcet, even with cycles - promise of
no runoffs can encourage more careful preparation for the primary vote
where Condorcet allows complete ranking.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827
1 - 100 of 497 matches
Mail list logo
