Gervase,
I commend you for getting involved in choosing a voting method for
forming a committee. This is an opportunity to educate other people,
and especially some of the leaders in your organization, about voting
methods.
I can offer a bit of advice from my own experience: find out who will
ha
I just added a couple of examples for Ranked Pairs and changed example #1.
The can be accessed via:
http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/rankedpairs/
At this point, I am not planning to add any more examples unless
someone can think of a useful case that I missed.
Election-methods mailing
At 2004-01-31 15:55 -0500 Saturday, Adam Tarr wrote:
>I recognize the futility in arguing with Craig, but I'll say a few things.
...
>>Adam Tarr wrote:
>> >
>> >This is, in my opinion, the crucial difference between the (non-academic)
>> >criteria that Mike uses, and the standard academic criteri
I recognize the futility in arguing with Craig, but I'll say a few things.
Craig Carey wrote:
Adam Tarr wrote:
>
>This is, in my opinion, the crucial difference between the (non-academic)
>criteria that Mike uses, and the standard academic criteria. Normal
>academic criteria essentially tell you
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:20:09 -0500
> From: Adam Tarr
> Subject: RE: PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] Bill
> Lewis, never re-district]
> I also suggest you check out proportional approval voting (PAV). Here's
> the initial thread about it:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/el
> Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:22:09 +0100
> From: Markus Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV
> For Ernest's proposal, I suggest terms like "Smith-MinMax"
> or "Smith-Simpson-Kramer".
I agree with Markus here. In fact, there are quite a few names inv
At 2004-01-31 12:45 -0500 Saturday, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
>> > Markus also said that the academics always define criteria in terms of
>> > actual votes, ballots, rather than mentioning "preference" in the usual
>> > sense of that word. Markus prefers that also. However, the fact that others
>> > only
I increasingly think that Schwartz and Mono-add-top must be incompatible.
Suppose we aim to meet both of these criteria with a method called
"Schwartz//MaxJ" where we elect that Schwartz member who maximizes property
J. Say that in scenario S, candidate A is elected. Suppose candidate B
who is
For Ernest's proposal, I suggest terms like "Smith-MinMax"
or "Smith-Simpson-Kramer".
While these are certainly accurate names for the method, Ernest's goal was
to come up with a name that catchy and that instantly gives some idea of
the method to a layman. "Instant Matchup Voting" does this jo
> Markus also said that the academics always define criteria in terms of
> actual votes, ballots, rather than mentioning "preference" in the usual
> sense of that word. Markus prefers that also. However, the fact that others
> only mention ballots doesn't mean that it's somehow improper to refer t
Hallo,
the term "Ranked Voting" is already used by the CVD for IRV.
As far as I know, the term "tournament" usually refers to
decision processes where the final winner only depends on
who wins against who and not on the strengths of these wins.
For Ernest's proposal, I suggest terms like "Smith-
Dear Mike,
you wrote (31 Jan 2004):
> Markus says that the academics use "preference" in the way that you
> interpreted it. But I believe that my meaning for it is in keeping with
> people's usage, and dictionaries, and that, if the academics mean
> "preference" as Markus says they do, then it is
Dear Mike,
Floyd has proven that when you consider the possible short-cuts
in that very special order that has been proposed by him then a
single pass through the triple-loop is sufficient to find all
the strongest paths.
When the strength of a pairwise defeat is measured primarily by
p1 (= the a
List members--
Markus said (again and again):
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
