Brian,
--- Brian Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Well said. This argument goes back at least as far as the canonical
work by Kenneth Arrow. In laying the axioms on which his conclusions
lay, he argued that you can't compare utility _between_ people.
I say otherwise. We do implicitly
James G.--
You wrote:
Nowhere in my comments will you find any such suggestion. Do not attribute
to me comments I have
not made.
I reply:
I'm not saying that you advocate IRV, but, if you do, and if part of your
argument for IRV over Condorcet is your claim that people won't like a
When Mr. Olson explained about the linear transformation, to change the
extremes of a the points assignments, I objected that the numbers would no
longer be in the same proportion as the original numbers. I objected because
it had been said that they'd remain in the same proportion, or
Gervase Lam--
You wrote:
Ignoring the names of any voting methods for a brief moment, here are some
what I think are correct definitions in terms of candidates:
I reply:
Ok, but remember that those are _your_ definitions, and people aren't
incorrect if they use those terms differently.
You
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote
James G.--
You wrote:
Nowhere in my comments will you find any such suggestion. Do
not attribute to me comments I have not made.
I reply:
I'm not saying that you advocate IRV, but, if you do, and if
part of your
argument for IRV over Condorcet is your claim that
Latest web toy: a poll on Election Methods, Ballot Styles, Voting
Technology and Representation Systems.
http://bolson.org:8080/v/t?poll=em
As I am wont to do, it's a Rated ballot. :-)
Enjoy. I hope someone finds this useful/amusing.
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
Election-methods
On May 22, 2004, at 2:22 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
You or Ken Johnson can define anything you want, but please understand
that defining something a certain way doesn't mean that others should
go by that definition, if they're already using a different
definition.
Same goes for you, Mike. No one
On May 22, 2004, at 9:54 AM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
--- Brian Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Well said. This argument goes back at least as far as the canonical
work by Kenneth Arrow. In laying the axioms on which his conclusions
lay, he argued that you can't compare utility _between_ people.
I
On May 22, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Adam H Tarr wrote:
Some rated systems behave differently if signed numbers are used or if
positive-only numbers are used.
when?
Combinations of normalization and shifting can alter a vote such that
you can't reverse the process and get the original vote back again.
Brian Olson wrote:
Adam Tarr wrote:
Some rated systems behave differently if signed numbers are used or if
positive-only numbers are used.
when?
Combinations of normalization and shifting can alter a vote such that you
can't reverse the process and get the original vote back again.
Shift, then
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 22:06:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
This is not realistic unless you think voters are all extremists and only the
candidates show moderation.
...
Kevin Venzke
Kevin,
It's not so much a matter of them being
Ken Johnson wrote:
The proposed Normalized CR method is as
follows:
(1) Voters give candidates CR ratings. There no need for any range limit
- any finite CR value, positive or negative, can be allowed.
(2) Apply an additive shift to each voter's CR profile so that the sum
of the absolute
Dear election methods fans,
I hope that someone finds this interesting... I've been working on
applying some of the tools of voting methods theory to other areas.
Specifically, well, to the area of romance! And at the same time, to
things like college admissions and the interaction
13 matches
Mail list logo
