--- Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Another compromise suited to ranked ballots would be to set the cutoff at
> the median viable candidate (instead of Kevin's mean CR candidate) at each
> stage.
This is an interesting idea. I wonder if it would prove to be cloneproof?
My prefer
Forest,
--- Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] Kevin Venzke wrote:
> >
> > Also, it would be sensible for the (artificial) approval ballots to give a half
> > vote to candidates who lie precisely on the average, since there's no justification
> > eit
Chris,
--- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>> So the criterion means that if X is mentioned on fewer ballots than Y received
>> first-place votes, we can't pick X. It sounds like a good criterion to me,
>> because it seems unlikely that, in this case, we could possibly have a good
>>
This version of Chris's could be called "runoff done right."
It preserves the idea of not "lowering your vote" until lack of viability
forces it upon you, but it has a better measure of viability than ordinary
runoff, and it doesn't make "irrevocable decisions based on partial
information" (a nice
Just a reaction to one little thing that Donald said...
--- Donald Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> Hi Robertas,
...
> If an election is supposed to be a non-partisan election, then the Hare
> quota should be used with STV. The Hare will not average the votes of the
> candidates of any p
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] Kevin Venzke wrote:
>
> Also, it would be sensible for the (artificial) approval ballots to give a half
> vote to candidates who lie precisely on the average, since there's no justification
> either way to approve or disapprove such candidates.
If the average we
I like Kevin 's "another CR/Approval method", and I think it would
be good if the name contained a reference to the
type of ballot used. Maybe something like "Venzke Ratings"?
It has occurred to me that the method is similar in concept to "Runoff
Without Elimination". This quickly led
Kevin,
You wrote:
I'm not sure I've understood your idea, but I'm sure such ideas are worth
exploring. The most intuitive change, it seems to me, would be to actually
eliminate "eliminated" candidates (not just bar them from victory) and start
the process over. Maybe you're saying that. (But
Hi Robertas,
Thank you for asking for our opinions. We like to give our opinions, even
if we are not in unison.
To begin with, your current system is much better than what we have here in
America. We have very few PR elections.
One step towards some improvement for you would be for you to all
