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
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:16:14 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 07:44 PM 1/3/2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
BTW, I would not 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
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:19:29 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:28 PM 1/4/2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:16:14 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. That can be a *lot* of preparation, and people
are busy, many don't already, find time for v
On Re: [EM] Does IRV elect "majority winners?" Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Condorcet certainly costs more for the system than Plurality. Costs
bullet-voters nothing - provides a service to whichever voters like to
do more than bullet vote.
Actually can be
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:51:36 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Re: [EM] Does IRV elect "majority winners?" Kristofer Munsterhjelm
wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Condorcet certainly costs more for the system than Plurality. Costs
bullet-voters nothing -
Extended now to EM - I should have started this in both.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:40:58 - Bruce R. Gilson wrote:
--- In rangevot...@yahoogroups.com, Dave Ketchum wrote:
We need to sort thru the possibilities of going with Condorcet. I
claim:
Method must be open - starting with the N*N
Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:50:05 -0500 (EST) Dale Sheldon wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Condorcet/IRV would make a better pair since the voters would do the same
ranking for both, and IRV would, usually, pick the CW when such exists.
Just so we're clear, you mean:
* Elect th
ed to rangevot...@yahoogroups.com, so I won't see
> replies posted only there.]
>
> On 1/9/09 Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Extended now to EM - I should have started this in both.
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:40:58 - Bruce R. Gilson wrote:
>>
>>> --- In rangevot...
oses by an even larger margin. Hence the term "center squeeze
effect".
Of course this changes if the candidates are skewed around more than
one policy dimension. Obviously where there is no centrist, there can
be no center-squeeze effect.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconn
ng petitions is generally non-secret - with this known to the signers.
Speech is only occasionally kept secret - courts and legislatures and
societies choose when they need this.
...
Proxies? There is need for a verifiable record as to how many votes a
proxy can cast.
--
da...@clarityconnect.c
.
As with Approval, Condorcet voters have choices:
Dedicated followers of the two on the side likely bullet vote.
Center voters properly vote for a bunch of center candidates - hoping
one such will win.
...
--
da...@clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108
h the voting rule makes
strategizing counterproductive--the ranking just becomes a sequence of
first choices contingent on the earlier-listed candidates being excluded.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827
) is allowed. It is the nature of the public sphere, and part of
the legitimacy it confers on the process. More on that later...
Dave Ketchum replied:
I get dizzy on public vs private as used here, but have to disagree
on some of the above.
As discussed below, need for secrecy/publicity
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:59:56 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
By a voting system "of the public sphere", I mean...
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I do not see voters getting a choice. Whoever has power or
authority sets up the system. Voters, at most, can choose whether
to participate and/o
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:30:41 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere
Thanks for this. I did a search on "vot" and am convinced voting is
not one of their topics - and suspect you stretched to tie it in.
I had to learn new thing
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:25:57 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Real topic here is whether you MEAN secret when you use the word...
Scout's honour - when I say 'secret', I mean secret. The vote is
anonymous. The voter's identity is undisclosed. All that g
- B&C is all other.
IRV elects B!
Condorcet elects A.
--
da...@clarityconnect.com 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 p
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:25:27 -0800 Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 9:56 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
The war here is over IRV/STV, which Kathy attacks, Terry defends, and
I agree that kathy should win.
You agree that IRV/STV is unconstitutional? On what grounds, exactly?
I NEVER
of committing undetectable
fraud.
In Ireland, we count PR-STV by hand and there are various checks that
can be accomplished.
--
da...@clarityconnect.compeople.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one
OOPS - these are NOT my statements.
DWK
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:30:41 -0700 Kathy Dopp wrote:
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
This is the case with IRV/STV. The only time it doesn't happen is if
people don't fill in all the ranks (which granted does happen).
that each ballot is in a
valid sub-pile and that the total in the sub-pile matches the original
count.
--
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 w
useful.
--
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
about the
limitations of this (that we can't infer the shape of the curve in issue
space from ranking alone), and that perhaps we don't need the shape of
that curve - but on that, I'm uncertain, since I don't know Black's theorem.
There's also the problem of noise a
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
Your last par. addresses getting away from random numbers in picking
winners - ok.
I remain against lotteries.
DWK
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:30:40 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
We need provision for breaking ties. I offer a thought that avoids
tossing coins
On Aug 23, 2011, at 9:06 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
I very much agree with Jameson Quinn that the time has come to
write, sign, and widely distribute a formal statement of the
election-method principles that we agree upon. Yet instead of just
providing a checklist of what we approve, I sugges
showing
preference by ranking both with A higher than B is doable here, though
not in FPTP or Approval.
Combinations of the above ranking are permitted, leaving as many as
the voter may choose at the bottom (unranked) level.
Dave Ketchum
On Aug 24, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Fred Gohlke wrot
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
e not counted as method
differences.
Dave Ketchum
On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/24 Markus Schulze
Hallo,
I wrote (24 Aug 2011):
> In my opinion, the "Voting Reform Statement"
> endorses too many alternative election methods.
> Opponents will a
about them.
Claim that what I wrote about simplifying Condorcet voting August 24,
2011 3:05:19 PM EDT needs to be seen by more at this point.
Dave Ketchum
Looking at proportional elections:
4) Aren't we in a position to
a) recommend Meek's method ahead of IRV-STV, when it
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
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
ote can have no useful effect on the outcome
of the election, or on anything else in the objective world.
Again it follows:
(a) What the individual voter thinks is of no importance; or
(b) The election method is flawed.
Which of these statements is true? I think it must be (b).
Dave Ketchum
ots, and the winning
candidate must receive a majority of votes."
I question "two or three" - there is no need to dump losers - we care
about winners.
Dave Ketchum
"Almost all of us signing this declaration recommend that an
organization formally adopt a rule that specif
Too late this night for fancy words, but hopefully I can express some
useful thoughts.
On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
Here is what I've just written for the new section titled "Multiple
rounds of voting":
--- begin
In highly competitive elections, m
On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:11 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
Thank you Dave Ketchum and Peter Zbornik for your excellent
responses to my first draft of the "multiple rounds of voting"
section! I have tried to incorporate your requested improvements,
while attempting to keep it short.
He
paragraphs and let the readers investigate each method without us
offering any high-level perspective.
--- A voter's view by Dave Ketchum ---
Mark on a ruler those you would be willing to promote toward winning,
assuming those that you prefer drop out for some r
all
done in a reasonable number of days.
"party nomination" relates to primary,, "independent nomination"
relates to independence ignoring party, and "designating petition"
relates to primary - are all used in our law on this.
Dave Ketchum
On Sep 2, 2011,
that yet.
Via http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi I looked up NY
election law (ELN). It gets deeply involved in voters nominating
candidates by petition - voters who do not spend all their time at
this complex task - but nothing glaring about party control.
Dave Ketchum
On Sep 3
fail from overweight.
Dave Ketchum
On Sep 5, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
Fred Gohlke wrote:
I think it's important for people proposing Electoral Methods to
know (and agree upon) the prize they seek - and not lose sight of
it. I fear I've failed to make that point.
I finally got around to a bit.
I see both Judgment and Judgement - can one be a typo?
Declaration of Election-Method Experts and Enthusiasts
Contents
When there is a list of items, some taking more than one line,
something, such as indentation, should show start of each item.
I see Enthusia
es. Therefore a reporting format such as Robert's would be
usable if humans could agree - or even have selectable choices of
formats if enough desire.
Dave Ketchum
On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:12 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
still not sure of the efficacy of trying to persuade voter
g of votes
should cause rejection of such methods. Burlington was an example of
IRV failing to read true voter desires.)
Dave Ketchum
On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
To: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
I believe that you imply, in your message copied below, that you
like the fol
for Condorcet, but demand of others comparable
quality.
Dave Ketchum
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Quoting Mike Ossipoff: 'to me, our current public political elections
don't require any strategy decisions, other than "vote for acceptable
candidates and don't vote for the entirely unacceptable ones."'
In the discussions of Approval and ranking, below, Mke's thought
applies to both. In
On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:13 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Quoting Mike Ossipoff: 'to me, our current public political
elections don't require any strategy decisions, other than "vote for
acceptable candidates and don't vote for the entirely unacceptable
ones."'
On Nov 9, 2011, at 6:26 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
In light of the #OWS statement on electoral reform.
http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/people-before-parties-electoral-reforms.html
My Thoughts about an alternative possible "consensus" statement for
non-electoral analytical types.
Agreed I strayed beyond "consensus statement". You gave me room to
work on some details that need considering in the overall task.
On Nov 9, 2011, at 9:24 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
DLW wrote: In light of the #OWS statement on electoral reform.
http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/pe
that "much".
Dave Ketchum
On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Ted Stern wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/voters-experience-stress-on-election-day-study-finds.html
I remember hearing about other studies showing that making difficult
decisions &qu
On Nov 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote, as Burlington
manifesto:
(Note: The email subject is mostly a joke; I doubt this email will
be coherent and enduring enough to be considered a manifesto. Also,
if you skip to the bottom, I'll talk a bit about how my recently-
proposed 321 voti
ct referenced in the body.
Passing out abbreviation pages would help if their "subject" made them
findable.
Note that one detail in this conversation is sorting out the meaning
of the various identifiers such as ABE.
Dave Ketchum
Jameson
2011/11/19 MIKE OSSIPOFF
You wrote:
Y
On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:53 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Jameson,
like you I think ratings are simpler and easier for the voter. But
it doesn't matter because ordinal ballots
can be transformed clone free and monotonically into ratings by the
technique I gave in my message
entitled
"Borda Don
ires little more than that, since
we got there by being near to ties.
Dave Ketchum
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
istow-johnson wrote:
The next two are related, though not directly quoted.
On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 1:39 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Sat, 2011-11-24 at 10:47 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Initial topic is IRV.
the counterexample, again, is Burlington Vermont. Dems haven't
s
Trying one more time to start a sales pitch for switching from IRV to
Condorcet.
On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On 12/1/11 5:14 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
KM:If the cost of campaigning is high enough that only the two
major parties can play the game, then mo
e 8 or 9 battles are winnable.
One specific response:
JQ:
3. Some other organization pushes some other system(s), and reaches
a tipping point.
dlw:IOW, they need to reinvent what FairVote's been
working hard to build up for some time...
Yep. It's a lot of work. If voti
On Dec 6, 2011, at 4:19 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
How to vote in IRV:
When there are completely unacceptable candidates who might
win (I call that condition u/a, for “unacceptable/acceptable”)
You DO NOT rank such since, if you rank such a candidate, so might
enough others for this one to
On Dec 7, 2011, at 1:31 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Dave:
On Dec 6, 2011, at 4:19 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
How to vote in IRV:
When there are completely unacceptable candidates who might
win (I call that condition u/a, for “unacceptable/acceptable”)
You replied:
You DO NOT rank such since,
with the
fight for
a decent new party, as each depends on the other.
More detailed arguments can be found in
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/twoParty.html
<http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/%7Eunger/articles/twoParty.html>
Steve
Dave Ketchum
Election-Methods mailing lis
s would be such as destructive
competition between Occupy-backing candidates in the Green and
Libertarian parties - if they split the votes of Occupy backers and
thus each lost.
On Dec 11, 2011, at 1:42 AM, Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Write-ins can be effective. I hold up proof this year
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Ketchum > wrote
per this subject - see at end below.
Leon Smith added reference to http://reformact.org/ - by a group that
offers extensive references and thoughts - worth exploring.
On Dec 11, 2011, at 6:06 PM, James Gilmour wrote: the following ab
collections of political parties.
Dave Ketchum
On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:18 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote per: Dave: Re: The
Occupy-Movement:
Dave:
You wrote;
If there is truth in what I read, the US desperately needs
better attention to public safety, including officers, and those
directing them
ht, potential customers get
suspicious as to future marketing.
I do not understand the above claim about majority winners - true that
FPTP voters cannot completely express their desires, but the counters
can, accurately, read what they say with their votes.
Dave Ketchum
That is deb
Looks like your new system is teaching you properly.
I tried printing with smaller characters - and each line filled out
properly.
I tried making the page wider or narrower - still properly got as many
words on each line as would fit.
On Jan 22, 2012, at 10:30 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Th
omething needs doing too late to
attend to with normal nominations. True that voters may do some write-
ins when there is no real need - and I have no sympathy for such
voters - this needs thought.
Dave Ketchum
On Jan 28, 2012, at 3:13 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote
Re: [EM] Propose plain Approval
On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:31 AM, Clay Shentrup wrote:
As far as I can tell, no amount of evidence will change DaveK's
mind. But it's worth pointing out that Score Voting is superior to
Condorcet in essentially every way.
* Lower Bayesian Regret with any number of strategic or honest voters
NOTE
, as to
winnability.
Dave Ketchum
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Andy Jennings wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Richard Fobes > wrote:
On 2/2/2012 11:07 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I honestly think that honest rating is easier than hon
.
. I do not object to such for the purpose of testing methods, but
do object to imposing it on voters in an otherwise normal election -
it adds unneeded complications for those voters.
Dave Ketchum
On Feb 2, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Bruce Gilson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Jameson Quinn
ecinct, as in Condorcet, counts
that look "odd" are the most likely locations of trouble.
Dave Ketchum
On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Stephen Unger wrote:
A fundamental problem with all these fancy schemes is vote
tabulation. All but approval are sufficiently complex to make manual
How did we get here? What I see called Condorcet is not really that.
On Feb 6, 2012, at 10:02 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
...
Say people vote rated ballots with 6 levels, and after the election
you see a histogram of candidate X and Y that looks like this:
(better)
6:Y X
5: Y X
4: YX
3:
ounts (the big difference between IRV and Condorcet).
Dave Ketchum
Of course one may also adopt different models in the two layers, two-
party system for the rop level and proportonal representation for
some state level representative bodies. Above I also made the
assumption that the strict tw-p
On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Robert,
De : robert bristow-johnson
À : election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Envoyé le : Jeudi 9 février 2012 10h07
Objet : Re: [EM] [CES #4445] Re: Looking at Condorcet
On 2/8/12 1:25 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 8.2.2012, at 7.33, robert bris
Many thoughts catch my eye here - I will not attempt to respond to all.
On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 03/22/2012 07:57 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
There are plenty of voters who report having to "hold their nose" and
vote only for someone they don't like. They'd al
other hand, it is very difficult to cause trouble with. The
plotter:
. Needs to know expectable normal vote counts for this collection
of voters and this topic.
. Know the change wanted and get it voted.
. Somehow avoid others, perhaps due to hearing of these proposed
changes, of maki
On Mar 24, 2012, at 3:49 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Approval can't be improved upon, other than questionably and
doubtfully.
This is a bit much, considering that there are many competing methods
that offer various worthy capabilities.
Looking at the ABucklin that you mention:
Assuming th
nking but, unlike
ABucklin or IRV, all that a voter ranks gets counted. Further, any
voter able to match their desires to Plurality or Approval for a
particular election, can vote by those rules and have them counted
with the same power by Condorcet rules.
Dave Ketchum
Mike Ossipoff
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
more people than anyone else in the
cycle.
ICT or ITC? Your zillion titles are beyond understanding.
ICT would be a better proposal than Condorcet, since it also meets
FBC and CD (it's
defection-resistant, unlike Condorcet). But ICT share's Condorcet's
problems #1 snd
#2,
On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I said that Plurality only lets you rate one candidate. That isn't
true. You're still rating all of the
candidates in Plurality, but you're required to bottom-rate all but
one of them.
Looking ahead, Plurality lets the voter present a sma
I choke when I see IRV called "fine" - it too easily ignores parts of
what the voters say. For example, look at what can happen with A
being much liked, yet IRV not always noticing:
20 A
20 B>A
22 C>A
Joe ?
Condorcet would see A elected by 62 votes (plus, perhaps, Joe's
63rd). IRV would
How do we identify a monster? Ŭalabio‽ seems to think they are
identifiable. I claim not - Ŭalabio‽ says they got excess ranking -
we can see this after a race (deciding excess ranking identifies a
monster - which even then is a problem only if the supposed monster
got ranked by too many,
On Apr 20, 2012, at 5:30 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
You said:
I choke when I see IRV called "fine"
[endquote]
Have I ever said that, without qualifying it? No.
I've said that IRV would be fine with an electorate different from
the one tht we now have--an electorate completely free of inclina
It pays to be careful when rearranging topics.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia, where they have to be careful:
In voting systems, the Smith set, named after John H. Smith, is the
smallest non-empty set of candidates in a particular election such
that each member beats every other candidate out
Seemed to me Mike left out some important thoughts - can we do better?
On Apr 21, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote, as:
Article, with the added paragraph and some better wording
Adrian and EM:
Elections are important to many organizations - and important that
they help the vot
ry complex but it is the foundation of modern life.
What do you think?
From: Dave Ketchum
To: election-methods Methods
Cc: Adrian Tawfik
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2012 8:41 PM
Subject: Election thinking,
Seemed to me Mike left out some important thoughts - can we do better?
On Apr 21, 2012,
On Apr 22, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I missed the fact that Dave was answering my question here, and so
I'll reply to his answer:
I'd said:
"Approved" ratings wins. The result? Well, we'd be electing the most
approved candidate, wouldn't we. Who can criticize that?
> Dave
each given a higher rank is preferred
over each given a lower rank.
Picking the winner is based on the candidate pairs - best is for a
candidate to win all its pairs. Note that, like Approval but unlike
such as IRV, batches of ballots can be counted into arrays and the
arrays summed.
On Apr 28, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
First, my apologies to Paul Kislanko, whom I called by the wrong
name when I replied to his posting, a few minutes ago.
_This_ reply is to Dave Ketchum:
Dave:
I'd said:
> How to avoid this problem? Why not repeal the rule th
diskette and see if the "password" was there, as it would be on the
original. After making the test, put those instructions back into
their hidden form.
Dave Ketchum
On Apr 28, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
That wasn’t Dave who said that, it was me.
My point was that what is
On Apr 28, 2012, at 5:04 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
For one thing, Condorcet discourages honesty, because, even if you
top-rank Compromise, top-ranking Favorite too can cause Compromise
to lose to Worse. when ranking Compromise _alone_ in 1st place
would have defeated Worse. To do
m still unimpressed with Mike O's analysis if this is what it
is. maybe i should un-plonk him, but i dunno why.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
Dave Ketchum
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
any less words.
Dave Ketchum
On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:09 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
What happened to Richard's promise to not read my postings? :-)
Instead of continuing to repeat that he doesn't read them, maybe it
would be better
if he could actually llve up to that promise.
Give
On Apr 30, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
On 04/29/2012 04:48 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Computers do well at performing the tasks they are properly told to
perform - better than humans given the same directions. Thus it would
make sense to direct the computers and expect them to do what
.
(I changed the subject line because the subject line is not intended
to be used to specify who you are writing to. The subject line
should indicate the topic.)
Good point! Also important to say when they posted it, for readers to
look back to the previous post.
Richard Fobe
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
On May 15, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 15.5.2012, at 11.11, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Juho and Kristofer:
Just a few preliminary words before I continue my reply to
Kristofer that I
interrupted a few hours ago:
We all agree that Approval would be much easier to propose and
enact
Oops - took so long stripping Mike O's zillion words that I forgot to
respond.
On May 16, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On May 15, 2012, at 2:55 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 15.5.2012, at 11.11, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Juho and Kristofer:
Just a few preliminary words bef
On May 17, 2012, at 2:09 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
Kristofer:
You expressed concern about uncertainty about how to vote in
Approval. Let me re-word what I was trying to say about that:
First, for simplicity let’s say that you belong to a faction that
all prefer and vote as you do. What
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, Michael
Thanks Juho, for working to make this dialog more useful!
DWK
On May 21, 2012, at 7:36 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
[Note: Michael Ossipof's message was not a reply to a mail on this
list but to an offline discussion.]
On 21.5.2012, at 23.13, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
I don't know what you mean by
201 - 300 of 497 matches
Mail list logo
