Russ Paielli wrote:
Daniel Bishop dbishop-at-neo.tamu.edu |EMlist| wrote:
Russ Paielli wrote:
Folks,
On the old "Technical Evaluation" page of ElectionMethods.org, I had
a criterion that I called "summability," which I defined as follows:
"Each vote should map onto a summable array, where the sum
Daniel Bishop dbishop-at-neo.tamu.edu |EMlist| wrote:
Russ Paielli wrote:
Folks,
On the old "Technical Evaluation" page of ElectionMethods.org, I had a
criterion that I called "summability," which I defined as follows:
"Each vote should map onto a summable array, where the summation
operation is
Iterative Quota Voting
I am very uncomfortable with complexity of the process used for
transferring surplus marks of the candidates in the STV counting
process. That counting process is very difficult for most voters to
follow. In BC they could easily be swayed to vote against BC-STV on 17
May
3 questions about this method:
1) What initial conditions do you use to start it off? Do you start off assuming each voter only votes for his or her favorite and then proceed from there? You could also do it other ways, e.g. vote for everybody except the least favorite in the first round.
2)
At least in 3-candidate examples, when Approval fails to elect the CW,
Approval fails in favor of the middle. That isn't true of IRV, which tends
to fail by jumping to an extreme.
Typically the voters will have the same information available to them. That'
a reasonable assumption.
Typically it
Russ Paielli wrote:
Folks,
On the old "Technical Evaluation" page of ElectionMethods.org, I had a
criterion that I called "summability," which I defined as follows:
"Each vote should map onto a summable array, where the summation
operation is associative and commutative, and the winner should be
