Hi Jobst,
On Apr 10, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
The River Method – Top-Down Version:
1. DISCUSS all options at once.
2. VOTE: By pairwise comparisons, determine the widths of all possible
river beds.
3. SORT the widths and process the river beds in groups of equal width,
in descending
"James Green-Armytage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> offers an interesting
proposal at:
http://fc.antioch.edu/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/voting_methods/proxy.htm
I quote a bit, and then offer alternate thoughts:
"A Proposal for Direct Democracy Based on a Non-Binding Proxy System
"by James Green-Armytage
"Althou
Hello election methods list!
Some years ago I have posted a few methods on the list, so some of you
might remember me vaguely... Though lacking time to actively participate
in your discussions, I have still visited the archives a number of times
in the meantime.
Today, I would like to ask you to
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Alex Small wrote:
> Forest Simmons said:
> > I think the public would find the televised Election Completion
> > Convention to be very informative and interesting, a great educational
> > experience, especially if Condorcet and Approval were sometimes used as
> > the completion
Markus said:
Dear John B. Hodges,
the following example demonstrates that Bucklin is
vulnerable to "compromising" (i.e. insincerely ranking
a candidate higher to make him win).
Markus, what method isn't "vulnerable to compromise"? Not BeatpathWinner (wv
or margins). Not Plurality, IRV, Borda.
I
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>
> It seems to me that when I first heard of Weighted Mean Approval, I didn't
> understand its rules. I"ve printed out the rules that you posted, and I'll
> check out its properties. It does sound Bucklin-like. For now, let me just
> say that I suggest th
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Paul Kislanko wrote:
> I hate to interrupt this discussion, but it is not founded on anything
> useful.
>
> A "concession speech" is just that - a speech. Generally delivered to a
> candidate's campaign workers and sometimes in front of lots of media who
> report "so-and-so con
Markus quoted the Minnesota Supreme Court:
the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote:
The preferential system [Bucklin] directly diminishes the right of an
elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice.
I reply:
That's odd, because if the voter votes only for his favorite, then he's
Hallo,
the Minnesota Supreme Court wrote:
> The preferential system [Bucklin] directly diminishes the right of an
> elector to give an effective vote for the candidate of his choice. If
> he votes for him once, his power to help him is exhausted. If he votes
> for other candidates he may harm his
