I don't disagree with Mike's post, but would point out that the
differences between Condorcet and Approval with regard to SU are fairly
small.
With results averaged over many runs, Condorcet generally has the edge
over Approval. Although in Merrill's "Making Multicandidate Elections
More Democra
My reference to Woodall was mainly with regard to nomenclature. Some of
his criteria names are a little confusing alongside prior naming
conventions. But then I'm a software engineer-- I'm always griping
about other peoples' variable & function names.
James Green-Armytage wrote:
>
>
Hi James,
On Mar 25, 2004, at 8:46 PM, James Green-Armytage wrote:
I suggest that the single-winner methods that might give us centrist
leaders, specifically Condorcet-efficient methods, would also have the
potential to give us centrist, compromise solutions to social problems.
Ah, thank
At 8:07 PM -0800 3/25/04, James Green-Armytage wrote:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What is sincere (= will best achieve the desired
result = election of most preferred candidate) in one voting system
This isn't how I generally understand the concept of sincere voting. In a
ranked ballot system, I wo
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:21:21 +0100 (CET)
> From: Kevin Venzke
> Subject: [EM] another idea (proportionality and intra-party competition)
>
> Open list. Each voter votes for one list, and *any number* of
> candidates within that list. So it's Approval within the party, and the
> party's me
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:21:21 +0100 (CET)
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
> Subject: [EM] another idea (proportionality and intra-party competition)
> Open list. Each voter votes for one list, and *any number* of
> candidates within that list. So it's Approval within the party, and t
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>What is sincere (= will best achieve the desired
>result = election of most preferred candidate) in one voting system
This isn't how I generally understand the concept of sincere voting. In a
ranked ballot system, I would hold sincere voting to the following
definition
>>majority criterion: If a majority of the voters prefers all of the
>members
>>of a given set of candidates over all candidates outside that set, and
>>they vote sincerely, then the winning candidate should come from that
>set.
Bart
>This sounds like
>Woodall's terminology
>
Mike
>
>I'm going to
> James Gilmour said:
>
> I would suggest that analysing (counting) by a
> different method the voting patterns of votes cast for
> counting under one method will not give a
> very useful result.
>
MIKE OSSIPOFF > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 11:59 PM
>
> ...unless sincere voting is assumed.
Dave Ketchum wrote:
"
BTW - I do see "=" for equal - and equality among several candidates.
Since, at any instant, Condorcet is only concerned with a single pair,
more equality does not make more complexity. Two voters voting A=B A=B
should net the same results as voting A>B and A
I reply:
It sho
Bart wrote:
In an earlier post, I didn't pay close enough attention to the
definition for this criterion:
James Green-Armytage wrote:
majority criterion: If a majority of the voters prefers all of the members
of a given set of candidates over all candidates outside that set, and
they vote sincerel
James Gilmour said:
I would suggest that analysing (counting) by a
different method the voting patterns of votes cast for counting under one
method will not give a
very useful result.
I reply:
...unless sincere voting is assumed. And IRVists claim that voting will be
sincere in IRV. You can't
Much of the criticism of Approval is done in a vacuum. I always want to
reply:
"...So then, Approval is worse thanwhat?"
IRV?
James cited Mutual Majority (MMC) as Approval's failing. But the mutual
majority situations where MMC applies are situations where IRV demonstrates
its failure of
This is the continuation of an exchange between myself (James), and Mr.
Prabhakar. The only other comment I'm aware of has come from Ms. Dotan.
Does anyone else want to jump in? Is there anyone on the list who has an
opinion on the direct democracy versus representative democracy question?
Hi James,
On Mar 25, 2004, at 9:15 AM, James Green-Armytage wrote:
I guess I would take your proposal more seriously if it included a
critique of how referenda system work in other places (like
California), and why your proposal would improve upon them. Right
now,
it sounded to me more like a p
Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I owe you an apology. I'm sorry I came across as negative or
>derogatory.
Gladly accepted.
>I suppose I'm just a little cynical about direct
>democracy, having lived in California for 15 years.
>
> I sympathize with your viewpoint about
16 matches
Mail list logo
