Ernest,
--- Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > BTW: Debatable whether voters should be permitted to rank candidates
> > as equal.
>
> Is there any good reason not to? Implicit equal ranking certainly
> makes it clearer about how unlisted candidates are counted. Any if at
Bill Lewis Clark wrote:
> CC doesn't say anything about requiring "fully specified" preferences.
I skipped over this part (because I figured I already knew what a "sincere
vote" was, but apparently not:)
[ From http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm ]
> A sincere vote is one with no fals
[ Quoting from http://www.electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm ]
> In Approval Voting, a candidate is "voted higher" by being "approved"
> rather than "disapproved."
> If one candidate is preferred over each of the other candidates, that
> candidate is the Ideal Democratic Winner (IDW).
> Condorce
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the input, very helpful. More comments below:
On Jan 27, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
I like what Ernest writes, though I see a bit of room for improvement
and suggest "tournament" as a less foreign-sounding title (even though
its ancestry is also French).
Hmm, may
A small mistake:
--- Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : >
> Tideman(WV) is charted as meeting ... Clone-Loser,
That should be "Clone-Winner." Of course it meets Clone-Loser, too.
Kevin Venzke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
Do You
I recommend AER (Approval-Elimination Runoff, or "Approval AV") for cases
where Schulze(wv) is considered impractical (due to the need for a pairwise
matrix) or unintuitive (as a decision-making process).
AER is like IRV, except that the elimination order is set in stone at the
beginning based on
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> At 7:54 PM -0500 1/24/04, Adam H Tarr wrote:
> >Eric wrote:
> >
> >>At 7:17 PM -0500 1/24/04, Bill Lewis Clark wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's nowhere near as good as Condorcet
> >>>(IMHO) but it's not "change for the sake of change."
> >>
> >>Apparently, it is.
>
At 10:27 PM -0500 1/27/04, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:55:41 -0500 Eric Gorr wrote:
On Jan 27, 2004, at 5:26 AM, Anthony Duff wrote:
I suggest that a definition of the condorcet election method being
publicly proposed should be explicit about the full pairwise
analysis, and that th
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:11:32 -0800 (PST) Forest Simmons wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>
>>IRV is not as similar to runoff as some claim - at runoff time I know the
>>result of the original vote; with IRV I must do all of my ranking at
one time.
>>
>>
>
> For sincere
These are the criteria Woodall uses. I omitted the ones (such as Clone-Loser
and Mono-Add-Plump) which all of our methods meet.
Plurality (winner's non-last rankings must >= others' first rankings)
Majority (including sets of candidates)
four Condorcet criteria (Condorcet and Smith, and a weaker
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Bill Lewis Clark wrote:
> In reading through some of the archives, I've come across a point that
> apparently needs some clarification.
>
> (A) The optimal strategy in CR is to always vote the maximum or
minimum.
>
> (B) CR is strategically equivalent to Approval.
>
> Now, the
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:55:41 -0500 Eric Gorr wrote:
On Jan 27, 2004, at 5:26 AM, Anthony Duff wrote:
I suggest that a definition of the condorcet election method being
publicly proposed should be explicit about the full pairwise
analysis, and that the possibility of a circular tie, and the
resolu
Thanks to Dave Gamble for taking the time to do some examples of my idea,
and coming up with one that shows that this approval strategy can indeed
over-look the Condorcet Winner when there is a close three way finish.
It is interesting that this method picked the highest utility candidate
(the Bor
> From: Eric Gorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Just an idea...
>
> Now that the Oscar nominations are out, if possible, run your own
> Oscar vote among a large group of people. Personally, I belong to a
> rather large movie group in the DC area and am doing just this. Not
> sure how much participat
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Alex Small wrote:
> Mike-
>
> When you argue that people should vote sincerely because one vote doesn't
> matter, you basically describe a "tragedy of the commons" as I understand
> the term. Suppose somebody said "Well, there's no harm in wasting
> electricity and water. Af
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, [iso-8859-1] Anthony Duff wrote:
> I am replying to:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01542.html
> From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF"
> Subject: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals
> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:47:47 +
>
> Mike wrote, in part,
>
>
> >... SSD, RP, and
Note that "optimal" is not the same as "optimum" . The difference is that
"optimal" allows for lack of uniqueness.
For example, in linear programming we have the well known "corner
principle" which says that if we search among all of the corners we will
find an optimal solution.
There may be ano
Yes^6, and other things that Bush never thought of.
Gore is just as bad a hawk and anti-environmentalist as Bush, if not
worse. He was in the pockets of the same corporate interests, etc.
His sheep's clothing are a little more convincing to some, but that's
intentional; if the devil didn't dress
Remember that Time Magazine website unofficial poll during the 2000
election year? Nader was way out ahead of both Gore and Bush after more
than an hundred thousand responses. If either Bush or Gore had that kind
of lead in a Time Magazine poll, no matter how unofficial or unscientific,
it would
A good old fashioned flame war here. I'm going to sidestep the vast
majority of this but I'll make a couple comments.
David Gamble wrote:
You
continued:
I've said many time, but apparently must again repeat, that, though
IRV
doesn't have offensive order-reversal, it requires, without any
offensiv
Anthony,
--- Anthony Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I note that PC is not the simplest condorcet method. PC means
> PC(winning votes). PC(margins) would be simpler and more intuitive.
> Margins are intuitive. The pairwise contests are decided by margins.
> The newcomer to condorcet wi
For anyone whose noticed it's conspicuous absence for quite awhile
now, it's back up
--
== Eric Gorr = http://www.ericgorr.net = ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the
Just an idea...
Now that the Oscar nominations are out, if possible, run your own
Oscar vote among a large group of people. Personally, I belong to a
rather large movie group in the DC area and am doing just this. Not
sure how much participation I will end up with, but I am hoping...
I basical
On Jan 27, 2004, at 5:26 AM, Anthony Duff wrote:
I suggest that a definition of the condorcet election method being
publicly proposed should be explicit about the full pairwise
analysis, and that the possibility of a circular tie, and the
resolution of such a circular tie should be treated like a f
Bill Lewis Clark wrote:
>> I'm also against re-districting. Ever.
Anthony Duff challenged:
> How much thought have you put into that?
Not terribly much.
The points you raise (which I've left out because I'm not going to address
them individually) are all valid.
I'm basically just against PR,
Dear Anthony,
you wrote (27 Jan 2004):
> I suggest that a definition of the condorcet election method being
> publicly proposed should be explicit about the full pairwise
> analysis, and that the possibility of a circular tie, and the
> resolution of such a circular tie should be treated like a fo
Hi Anthony,
On Jan 27, 2004, at 5:26 AM, Anthony Duff wrote:
I suggest that a definition of the condorcet election method being
publicly proposed should be explicit about the full pairwise
analysis, and that the possibility of a circular tie, and the
resolution of such a circular tie should be tre
James Gilmour wrote:
> I thought the purpose of holding public elections for state
> assemblies and city councils was to obtain representation for
> people, not patches of land defined by geography.
Nope. A city council governs a particular geographic region, and only
coincidentally the people i
--- Bill Lewis Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not into proportional representation. I prefer my
> representatives to
> be tied to geography, not ideology. Geography is concrete, and
> ideology
> is too abstract. Call me old-fashioned.
>
> I'm also against re-districting. Ever. If
I am replying to:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01542.html
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF"
Subject: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:47:47 +
Mike wrote, in part,
>... SSD, RP, and PC are
>the Condorcet versions to propose for public elections
Mike Ossipoff wrote:
> So, for Dave to suggest that we rely on expert authority to justify
> our criteria suggests that Dave is either dishonest or astoundingly
> stupid.
Mike, cut out the name-calling already. You're doing yourself a
disservice by behaving in this way.
-Bill Clark
--
Dennis
Bill Clark wrote:
> I'm not into proportional representation. I prefer my
> representatives to be tied to geography, not ideology.
> Geography is concrete, and ideology is too abstract. Call me
> old-fashioned.
I thought the purpose of holding public elections for state assemblies and city
There is one area in which I will acknowledge that Mike is Indeed an "expert" that of the partial presentation of facts combined with the use of certain rhetorical techniques to create a misleading impression that he is right.
Right let's see what he's come up with today.
I wrote:
For example i
Mike-
When you argue that people should vote sincerely because one vote doesn't
matter, you basically describe a "tragedy of the commons" as I understand
the term. Suppose somebody said "Well, there's no harm in wasting
electricity and water. After all, my electricity alone isn't contributing
to
In reading through some of the archives, I've come across a point that
apparently needs some clarification.
(A) The optimal strategy in CR is to always vote the maximum or minimum.
(B) CR is strategically equivalent to Approval.
Now, the point I would like to make clear is that A and B are not
s
Someone, maybe Kevin, said:
Later-no-harm is technically an advantage over Approval, one that gets
brought up quite a bit.
I reply:
It gets brought up quite a bit. I've answered it. I discussed LNH in my
posting entitled:
"Woodall's Whacky & Zany Criteria".
Here's another reply to that claim t
Yesterday I defined a kind of radial symmetry, in which the voters'
population density distribution is the same along every ray leading from the
center of the distribution.
But it seems to me that I've heard a weaker definition of radial symmetry:
It requires only that for every ray leading fro
When I said that Steve had demonstrated what I meant when I referred to an
endlessly-repeated reply to a statement never made, I meant that Markus had
just demonstrated that n his posting to which I was replying.
Mike Ossipoff
_
Re
38 matches
Mail list logo
