Re: [EM] approval strategy

My favourite approval strategy to recommend generally is "vote for your strategic plurality candidate and every candidate you like better." (suggested to me by Marc LeBlanc) Anthony --- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm trying to understand the argument in favor of app

Re: [EM] approval strategy

James, --- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > I'm trying to understand the argument in favor of approval voting, and so > I need to know a bit more about approval strategy. Approval fans, does > this sound like a good statement of approval strategy?: > > "Approve your favorite

[EM] approval strategy

I'm trying to understand the argument in favor of approval voting, and so I need to know a bit more about approval strategy. Approval fans, does this sound like a good statement of approval strategy?: "Approve your favorite candidate, plus anyone whom you like better than the frontrunner." Jame

Re: [EM] Logic/Jargon question

Paul, --- Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > >From Wikipedia: > > In voting systems, the Smith > set is the smallest set of candidates in a particular election who, when > paired off in pairwise elections, can beat all other candidates ou

Re: [EM] Re: majority rule criteria--alternative nomenclature

I basically agree with Paul's post. Different voting methods are appropriate in different situations. In my January 9 post "majority rule criteria", my purpose wasn't to say that approval voting is bad (although my choice of a category name might have carried that implication). My purpose was to p

Re: [EM] Logic/Jargon question

Paul Kislanko wrote: From Wikipedia: In voting systems , the Smith set is the smallest set of candidates in a particular election who, when paired off in pairwise elections, can beat all other candidates outside the set. Ideally, t

[EM] Logic/Jargon question

From Wikipedia: In voting systems, the Smith set is the smallest set of candidates in a particular election who, when paired off in pairwise elections, can beat all other candidates outside the set. Ideally, this set consists of only one candidate, the Condorcet winner. However, when the

RE: [EM] Re: majority rule criteria--alternative nomenclature

James Green-Armytage wrote in response to RLSuter, in part.. > > Another example was a board meeting of a national > >organization with a dozen or so people present. A > >decision had to be made about where to hold the next > >meeting. Approval voting was used, and it went well, with > >everyon

Re: [EM] Re: majority rule criteria--alternative nomenclature

> > >Mike Ossipoff answered you pretty well in his "counting time" >response. Have you read my reply to his reply yet? That was posted January 14th. In that message, I describe this counting method in more detail. Basically, it works when you have a small-enough group to do quick pai

[EM] Re: Re: electionsmethods website is cancelled

It seems to me that it would be perfectly ethical for Russ to post his own versions of Mike's ideas as long as he identifies them as such. It is common in the acknowledgements in the forward or preface of a book for an author to thank many proof readers and others who have made helpful suggesti

Re: [EM] Re: electionmethods website is cancelled

Bart Ingles bartman-at-netgate.net |EMlist| wrote: Seems to me it's Russ's web site. If he wants collaborators or feedback, he certainly knows where to find them. I think most of us would be willing to review and comment on anything on the site, or any proposed changes to it. Bart I welcome c

Re: [EM] Re: electionmethods website is cancelled

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:10:21 -0800 Bart Ingles wrote: Dave Ketchum wrote: Bart Ingles wrote: ... Thank you for the proposal. Assuming the Committee found something like this acceptable, there might be little more for them to do, beyond existing. What committee? Has it already appointed itself?

Re: [EM] Re: electionmethods website is cancelled

Dave Ketchum wrote: Bart Ingles wrote: Thank you for the proposal. Assuming the Committee found something like this acceptable, there might be little more for them to do, beyond existing. What committee? Has it already appointed itself? What happens if it disagrees with the site owner concernin

Re: [EM] Re: electionmethods website is cancelled

electionmethods wasn't the ideal resource site on the topic, but it was decent and I've seen a lot of people get in the habit of linking to it (here and on /. and other blog/communities). That stability is perhaps the biggest loss of this change. If we can't rely on it to be there anymore, mayb

[EM] Practicality of ranked ballot methods

Ralph Suter writes: >I'll cite just two examples of actual decisions I was involved with. One >was at the 1996 founding convention of an organization tentatively named >"The Alliance." There were over 300 people at the convention, and one >decision they needed to make was to choose

Re: [EM] Re: electionmethods website is cancelled

Bart Ingles wrote: Dave Ketchum wrote: We NEED a committee. Seems to me it's Russ's web site. If he wants collaborators or feedback, he certainly knows where to find them. I think most of us would be willing to review and comment on anything on the site, or any proposed changes to it. Bart T