Participants / anyone interested,
In my opinion, the most important/serious category of single-winner method
is
(1) plain rankings-ballot methods in which voters are asked to simply
rank the candidates. Truncation should be allowed, and allowing equal non-last
ranking is
Ralph,
I agree with you very strongly on this issue. This is pretty much what
I've been saying since Nader announced he was running: he needs to
(attempt to, at least) trade a partial endorsement to Kerry in exchange
for platform concessions.
So, I'd be happy to join your effort.
James G.-A., you wrote:
> Are you aware of Tideman's ranked pairs method? I believe that it is very
> similar to MAM. To be honest, I don't think about tiebreaking nuances,
> because to me, a tie should just be called a tie. (Not a majority rule
> cycle, but an actual tie given the basic rul
Let's keep these kinds of discussions off the list. I am not
interested. No, it does not matter how important you think your final
thought is...I am not interested.
If you would like a suggestion on an appropriate location for such
discussions, I would be happy to provide them off-list.
Paul K
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> Yep. You got it. Kerry's hold on his votes is very tenuous. If he even looks
> like he's asking Nader for "help", he's toast.
That's crazy. I don't doubt that there is *someone* out there that thinks
that illogically, but given that this would instantly giv
Yep. You got it. Kerry's hold on his votes is very tenuous. If he even looks
like he's asking Nader for "help", he's toast.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rob Brown
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> If Kerry were even to ACKNOWLEDGE Nader, Bush would win in a landslide
> because most of the reluctant Kerry voters still blame Nader for "electing"
> Bush.
Lemme try to follow your logic.
Kerry voters are angry at Nader for causing Bush to be elected.
Howe
NO THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA
If Kerry "negotiates with Nader" Kerry will lose about half of his "core"
supporters and EVERYBODY who is "in the middle." Nader is accomplishing
nothing by running except trying to get Bush re-elected.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL P
Is this another one of those republican tricks that have been going around?
If Kerry were even to ACKNOWLEDGE Nader, Bush would win in a landslide
because most of the reluctant Kerry voters still blame Nader for "electing"
Bush.
The RNC has been starting a lot of Yahoo! Groups labeled "non-parti
This is a very good idea, and I will help if I can.
Some time ago, I had the idea to start a site with the goal of convincing
Nader fans that voting for him was a bad idea, but unlike other such sites,
mine would have a technical emphasis and explain why our plurality system is
so broken (and t
Dear election-methods subscribers:
The following is a draft message I'm planning to begin
distributing tomorrow. The initiative involves a new
KerryNader Yahoo list focused on the goal of getting Kerry
and Nader to negotiate. As explained on the list page, I'm
looking for both strong Nader support
I was thinking that, while ranking all candidates is preferable (IMO) to
approval voting (since there is almost no strategy involved in the former
assuming a good tabulation method), making a ballot that can rank a large
number of candidates is very difficult and/or expensive to implement, and
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:08:43 + (UTC) Rob Brown wrote:
Dave Ketchum clarityconnect.com> writes:
I propose a ballot looking just like plurality would use to let voters
mark an "X" for one candidate. Here voters could rank as many of the
candidates as they chose:
Either 0-9 or A-Z would be
David GLAUDE gmx.net> writes:
> Releasing into public domain is not really the best choice if at all
> possible...
Why not?
> Who are we to judge on somebody else democracy?
> Let's try to fix our problem first...
I didn't suggest we TRY to fix anyone else's problems, I just said, if other
Rob Brown wrote:
Dave Ketchum clarityconnect.com> writes:
Agreed BUT:
If someone writes usable code, AND makes it public, what stops someone
else copying the code without paying those who did the work?
The main reason for not copying the code is copyright law.
You can only do what the licence of
Dear Stephen,
you wrote (2 Sep 2004):
> My question is about tiebreaking in the Schulze method
> (beatpath method).
>
> Suppose the part before the tiebreak has yielded more
> than one potential winner, and at least one candidate
> has been eliminated. Is there any reason why we can´t
> just iter
My question is about tiebreaking in the Schulze method
(beatpath method).
Suppose the part before the tiebreak has yielded more
than one potential winner, and at least one candidate
has been eliminated. Is there any reason why we can´t
just iterate the method, the difference this time
being that
17 matches
Mail list logo
