Re: [EM] Condorcet failure of Approval Voting (was Re: Dave reply)

Daniel Bishop wrote: It's better than Plurality in this regard, but not perfect. For example: 2: Bush>Perot>Clinton (approval vote = Bush) 1: Perot>Bush>Clinton (approval vote = Bush + Perot) 2: Clinton>Perot>Bush (approval vote = Clinton) The approval vote totals are: Bush: 3 Clinton: 2 Perot:

[EM] Condorcet failure of Approval Voting (was Re: Dave reply)

MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: ... [Dave] continued: BUT the voter's actions, such as strategy, have to be based on what is practical for voters to learn and use (it is too easy for EM members to design strategies that sound nice in EM debates, while not practical for public election voters to either get

Re: [EM] Clock Methods (for Three Candidates)

> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:37:12 -0800 (PST) > From: Forest Simmons > Subject: [EM] Clock Methods (for Three Candidates) > Take a clock face and put labels A, B, and C at 12:00, 4:00, and 8:00, > respectively. At 2:00, 6:00, and 10:00 put the labels not(C), not(A), > and not(B), respectively. > >

[EM] Standards for credibility on EM (an on-topic post that doesn't name anyone)

It was claimed or implied on this mailing list that if someone has an engineering degree from Standord, what he says has more credibility than what I say. But, assuming for the moment that the person actually went to Stanford, wouldn't his claim of enhanced credibility be true only if the t

[EM] Craig: I did include ballot-counting code

Craig Carey said: What the blazes ?: OSSIPOFF's Python code couldn't even accept ballot paper counts as input. That is what I saw at the Piaelli website. I reply: Very good point. I agree that it didn't make sense for the Python listing to not have code for receiving and counting rankings. The P

[EM] Europe's autonomy solutions [for ethnic groups]

The article talks about solutions to allow ethnic groups not to be surpressed. This has been briefly discussed before on this list. It doesn't go into great depth on the subject, but for those who are interested... Thanks, Gervase.

MIKE OSSIPOFF vs The list (Re: [EM] I didn't choose to be the topic

At 2005-01-31 15:27 + Monday, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote: ... >I"d said: > >>Of course, we'd all like to believe that anyone can be reached. I found >>that to not be so, and so I blocked Russ's e-mail, and that led to his >>raging and ranting on EM. > >That is another lie, folks. What happened was t

Re: [EM] simulating an Approval campaign/election

James Green-Armytage jarmyta-at-antioch-college.edu |EMlist| wrote: What kind of preference profiles are you using for your simulation? Are you defining voter preferences by ordinal ranking? Are the rankings entirely random, or are they built around certain patterns, e.g. issue space, or some other

[EM] software

Does anybody here know of software that accomodates most or all of these requests: - Can accept votes through the web, securely so that it matches users against a voter role and only accepts one vote from each user. - Can accept write-in candidates. - Can tally votes using IRV. - Can tally votes

Re: [EM] I didn't choose to be the topic

In a message dated 31/01/2005 15:29:28 GMT Standard Time, Mike Ossipoff wrote: Yes, I know, this is off-topic. True, I'm not the proper topic of EM. But anyone who is the topic of as many long postings as I've been has the right to reply, not to communicate with the poster, but to correct thin

[EM] Re: simulating an Approval campaign/election

Russ Paielli wrote: > Here's what I modeled. I have three candidates only. I randomly > generate votes, with equal probabilities for all six possible > preference orders. The only control variable for each vote is > where the voter "draws the line." In this case, that amounts to > whether or not th

Re: [EM] I didn't choose to be the topic

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:27:41 +, MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I know, this is off-topic. True, I'm not the proper topic of EM. But > anyone who is the topic of as many long postings as I've been has the right > to reply, not to communicate with the poster, but to correct th

[EM] I didn't choose to be the topic

Yes, I know, this is off-topic. True, I'm not the proper topic of EM. But anyone who is the topic of as many long postings as I've been has the right to reply, not to communicate with the poster, but to correct things said about me. I didn't choose this topic, so let's not attribute half the bla

Re: [EM] simulating an Approval campaign/election

What kind of preference profiles are you using for your simulation? Are you defining voter preferences by ordinal ranking? Are the rankings entirely random, or are they built around certain patterns, e.g. issue space, or some other type of 'closeness' of one candidate to another? I'd encourage you

Re: [EM] simulating an Approval campaign/election

Well, here I am following up on my own post again. Yesterday I presented an outline of effects that need to be considered in testing the stability and convergence of an Approval campaign and election. I got to thinking about how to do the simplest, most idealized possible simulation test. I pro