Bill said:
>>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:)
Mike replied:
> No, apparently not. But that didn't stop you from expounding on the
> list about som
Mike Ossipoff wrote:
> We at electionmethods reserve the right to only put up critreria that
> seem important to us. As you can tell from our introduction, we want
> to get rid of the lesser-of-2-evils problem, minimize or eliminate the
> need for drastic defensive strategy. Therefore it shouldn't
Richard Moore wrote:
> Variations of CR have been discussed here in the past. Around three
> years ago Forest and I had an exchange
Thanks for the pointer; I'll do some digging in the archive to bring
myself up to speed.
> That example is in the same category as the "exception" I pointed out.
I
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:12:14 -0800 (PST) Forest Simmons wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:09:00 -0800 (PST) Forest Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:11:32 -0800 (PST) Forest Simmons wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 20
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:38:15 -0500 Adam Tarr wrote:
At 02:20 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
I also approve of the word "tournament".
Tournament isn't bad, but I think it's a trifle inaccurate, since nearly
all sporting tournaments (College World series and a few others
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:38:15 -0500 Adam Tarr wrote:
At 02:20 PM 1/28/2004 -0500, Rob Speer wrote:
I also approve of the word "tournament".
Tournament isn't bad, but I think it's a trifle inaccurate, since nearly
all sporting tournaments (College World series and a few others being
notable exc
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:02:23 -0500 Adam Tarr wrote:
At 12:55 PM 1/29/2004 +0100, Markus Schulze wrote:
MinMax (aka PC) violates reversal symmetry and independence of clones.
The Libertarian Free State Project uses MinMax to decide which state
is the most suitable state for their purposes. Of cour
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I think CR deserves a lot more attention than it's received. In many
> ways, it's a generalization of various other systems. By restricting the
> range of values in one way, CR can be made to simulate Approval. By
> restricting them in another
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:09:00 -0800 (PST) Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:11:32 -0800 (PST) Forest Simmons wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> > James Gilmour wrote:
> > > If you were to adopt any party list system of PR (closed list, open
> > > list, MMP) you would give the parities more leverage. But if you
> > > adopted STV-PR (Choice Voting) you could shift the balance of power
> > > away from the parties to the voters.
Stephan
At 12:55 PM 1/29/2004 +0100, Markus Schulze wrote:
MinMax (aka PC) violates reversal symmetry and independence of clones.
The Libertarian Free State Project uses MinMax to decide which state
is the most suitable state for their purposes. Of course, independence
of clones was not an issue when they
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" a écrit :
> James Gilmour wrote:
>
> > If you were to adopt any party list system of PR (closed list, open
> > list, MMP) you would give the parities more leverage. But if you
> > adopted STV-PR (Choice Voting) you could shift the balance of power
> > away from the parties to
SPPA is available in english on the the British-Columbia citizen assembly
website
as a public submission:
http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/public
Click on "get_involved" and then "view submissions", ID 0065
Stéphane Rouillon, ing.
Bill Lewis Clark a écrit :
> > Would you like to read about a P
Hallo,
Mike Ossipoff wrote (28 Jan 2004):
> The Libertarian Free State Project uses PC. They wanted something
> especially briefly defined, because, all else being reasonably equal,
> a brief definition is easier to justify. Maybe we should listen to
> them for public proposals too. There's so lit
Dear Mike,
again: Instead of saying "Wrong. I don't call that the Floyd algorithm."
and bombarding those with insults who mentioned that you mistakenly
called your implementation "Floyd algorithm", it would have been better
if you had said "I don't call that the Floyd algorithm anymore." to stress
Bill said:
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:)
I reply:
No, apparently not. But that didn't stop you from expounding on the list
about something that yo
Markus said:
I suggest that you should use the term "anymore" more frequently.
I reply:
I suggest that you keep to yourself your suggestions about how I should word
things. The word "anymore" can optionally be used to make a double
statement, a statement about the present, and a statement abou
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).
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:10:36 -0800 Ernest Prabhakar wrote, per subject:
Re: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV
H
Bill Lewis Clark wrote:
>Richard Moore wrote:
>> Granted it may be possible to have different sets of probabilities in
>> a CR election than you would have if the same election were held with
>> Approval -- for instance, you might know that members of party X have
>> a tendency not to vote all-or-n
19 matches
Mail list logo
