James Green-Armytage wrote:
>
>> That's why we want an election method that can find the compromise
choice that serves 60% of the people when we might otherwise get some
faction's 40% or 41% choice.
>
>
>
> Of course, majoritarian methods like Condorcet can't guarantee
60%, or
> anything ove
James Green-Armytage writes:
> Also, actually ranking later choices in the compromise group at 100 is
>rarely necessary to prevent members of the greater evil group from
>winning. It depends on the size of the majority, the size of the cycle,
>etc. I just wrote "100" because that is the simpl
>
>To conclude that James' interpretation is most reasonable,
>I think one must take Mike's words out of context, since
>elsewhere Mike wrote that truncating a preference shall
>_not_ be considered falsely voting two candidates equal.
Yes, I assumed that Mike didn't intend it my way, but
>That's why we want an election method that can find
>the compromise choice that serves 60% of the people when we might
>otherwise get some faction's 40% or 41% choice.
Of course, majoritarian methods like Condorcet can't guarantee 60%, or
anything over 50.1%. But anyway, I agree w
Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they get 10% of whatever PR body, that's fine and there's no need
> to augment that with anything else.
>
> For a single seat, I think the vast majority would be poorly served by
> four years of office holding by a tiny majority. I'm even more scared
>
On Oct 18, 2004, at 7:09 AM, Bill Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:03:28 -0700, Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I think I'm allergic to the use of randomness in election methods, so
I
don't plan on implementing such an option.
The unique appealing feature of random methods is that they
Hi,
James G-A wrote:
> I suggest that ordinary winning votes methods (beatpath,
> ranked pairs, river, etc.) fails Mike Ossipoff's "strong
> defensive strategy criterion", according to what I think
> is the most reasonable interpretation of that criterion,
> whereas cardinal pairwise passes
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:03:28 -0700, Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I'm allergic to the use of randomness in election methods, so I
> don't plan on implementing such an option.
The unique appealing feature of random methods is that they're the
only ones that can be completely imm
