Dear election methods fans,
So, in case anyone hasn't heard, there is a VERY interesting situation in
Colorado this fall. On the November ballot there will be an amendment to
allocate their 9 electoral votes proportionally rather than via
winner-take-all. Not only would this be a
James,
Interesting, maybe this casts some light on the mystery of why the
Smith set is mentioned much more often the Schwartz set.
Does any problem arise with RP, River etc. if a line is simply added
at the front Eliminate non-members of the Schwartz set?
Your example:
5: RSAT
5: TARS
4:
James Green-Armytage jarmyta at antioch-college.edu writes:
Actually getting rid
of the EC via a federal amendment would be extremely difficult, but
gradually undermining it on a state-by-state basis is quite feasible.
Not sure why Colorado is doing this, but I doubt many other states will
Dear James Green-Armytage,
1. I suggest that a Schulze ranking should be used instead
of a purely randomly generated TBRC, so that it is
guaranteed that all Schwartz winners are ranked above
all other candidates.
2. I suggest that all N*(N-1) pairwise comparisons should be
ranked and
Not sure why Colorado is doing this,
Because the electoral college is widely recognized to be an
anti-democratic antique, left over from the time that ordinary people were
not trusted with the decision of electing the president.
but I doubt many other states will follow
suit, since
James G-A and anyone interested,
The meaning of my last post might not be completely clear, because I twice
omitted the word "minimum" in my explanation
of the "Descending minimum Augmented Gross Score" method.
Here are the two sentences, corrected:
A candidate's minimum AGS is its smallest
Hi,
James G-A wrote about a way to make the Electoral College
moot without a Constitutional amendment:
-snip-
What if California (or Texas, or any other state)
wrote it into law that they would award all 55
electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote??
-snip-
For example,
Hi,
James G-A replied to Rob B:
-snip-
If I lived in a swing state, I would be all for
a proportional allocation. It's just more fair,
less unstable. Who really wants to be in the middle
of the kind of craziness that they have in Florida
these days?
There's another way besides
Hi,
Chris B wrote:
-snip-
Does any problem arise with RP, River etc. if a line
is simply added at the front Eliminate non-members
of the Schwartz set?
One could also postpone that rule, making it the
first tie-breaker, depending on the voting method.
Why should we care about ensuring the
Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu writes:
Hi,
James G-A replied to Rob B:
Suppose instead it were winner-takes-all except when
the vote is really close:
I've exaggerated because of the limitations of the
text font. When I say really close I'm thinking
about within 1%,
Hi,
Rob B asked:
Steve Eppley writes:
Suppose instead it were winner-takes-all except when
the vote is really close:
-snip-
I've exaggerated because of the limitations of the
text font. When I say really close I'm thinking
about within 1%, or maybe 1/2%.
This would make recounts
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:27:50 -0400, James Green-Armytage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I lived in a swing state, I would be all for a proportional
allocation. It's just more fair, less unstable. Who really wants to be in
the middle of the kind of craziness that they have in Florida these
Hi again,
I think my diagram illustrating my proposal to tweak the
Electoral College winner-takes-all system could be made
clearer. I wrote:
-snip-
Suppose instead it were winner-takes-all except when
the vote is really close:
-
Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu writes:
Rob B asked:
Steve Eppley writes:
But recounts could still be important, you've just
moved the linewhat if it was a difference
0.4% and the election hung on whether it
was possibly really 0.5%?
I'm afraid I don't yet
Rob B wrote:
Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu writes:
Rob B asked:
Steve Eppley writes:
But recounts could still be important, you've just
moved the linewhat if it was a difference
0.4% and the election hung on whether it
was possibly really 0.5%?
I'm afraid I don't
Is this Condorcet Method (the subject of the following message) another name for
Kemeny's method?
IRV-P. Another name for Condorcet?
http://electorama.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=articlesid=59mode=threadorder=0thold=0
What's in a name?,
Steve Barney
Election-methods mailing
At 6:27 AM -0400 9/16/04, James Green-Armytage wrote:
Not sure why Colorado is doing this,
Because the electoral college is widely recognized to be an
anti-democratic antique, left over from the time that ordinary people were
not trusted with the decision of electing the president.
topic
First,as to whether proportional allocation would cause more recounts or fewer recounts:
Proportional allocation would certainly increase the odds that 1 or more states might be close enough for a recount. A state wouldn't have to be divided 50-50 for that to happen, even a state with a wide
Hi folks!
I never liked naming things after people because (1) it is almost always
questionable whether the person getting the credit has deserved it and
(ii) such names don't tell anything about the thing. As we all know, a
Condorcet method was already described, studied, and applied by Ramon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So.here's a weird little ammendment to your plan
... I think proportional EV allocation is not my own plan; my plan was EV
allocation by popular vote.
that states might
find more attractive. What if, say, California proposed a law like
this :
we will have
James G-A here, replying to Eric Gorr
Not sure why Colorado is doing this,
Because the electoral college is widely recognized to be an
anti-democratic antique, left over from the time that ordinary people
were
not trusted with the decision of electing the president.
topic police
This
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Alex Small wrote:
First, as to whether proportional allocation would cause more recounts
or fewer recounts:
Proportional allocation would certainly increase the odds that 1 or more
states might be close enough for a recount. A state wouldn't have to
Mike R wrote:
Steve Eppley wrote:
-snip-
The obvious question is, why prefer Kemeny's method?
What criteria does it satisfy that other methods fail
that are more important than the criteria other methods
satisfy that Kemeny fails?
I like Kemeny-Young is because it has many of what I
In a message dated 9/16/04 10:15 pm EDT, Alex Small writes:
Normally I would be excited to see 3rd party candidates play a larger role,
but the US Constitution stipulates that if nobody gets a majority of the
electoral votes cast then we go to a Byzantine House of Representatives
runoff:
Eric Gorr writes:
Not sure why Colorado is doing this,
Because the electoral college is widely recognized to be an
anti-democratic antique, left over from the time that ordinary people
were not trusted with the decision of electing the president.
topic police
This discussion is
25 matches
Mail list logo
