James--
You said:
minimax
(the method Mike refers to as "plain Condorcet")
As Markus demonstrated by posting a quote, minmax is a name for
Simpson-Kramer.
In fairly recent postings, I'd told why Plain Condorcet and Siimpson-Kramer
are obviously not the same thing.
Here's what Plain Condorcet (P
Hi,
On Apr 4, 2005, at 20:21, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
We know of course that most often
one can easily find two measures which do not agree on which candidate
is "best", so we're left with deciding which measure is most important.
But what if no measure is "most" important but each is important in
so
On Apr 4, 2005, at 23:32, Eric Gorr wrote:
one cannot assume that just a single population will vote
strategically to obtain the best outcome from their point of view.
once one population begins strategically voting, others will do so as
well and I have yet to see a compelling argument that it w
On Apr 4, 2005, at 23:38, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Maybe you have in an earlier post argued that majority rule (in this
sense)
is not as necessary in a "sincere method." But I doubt I can be
convinced
of that.
I'm not sure if I understood all you wrote, but anyway, if one
sincerely thinks that majori
Russ says:
First of all, I always informed you of any revisions I made to your
wording.
I reply:
No, I usually found about about the sloppifications when someone posted
about them on EM, or otherwise told me about them. You never e-mailed to me
to say: I've just changed the wording of a definitio
James--
First, to answer your question in your subject line, "What are we arguing
about?", I can't really say that I understand the question, if you're asking
that I name a disagreement other than those that have been so thoroughly
expressed in the postings.
But my description of the discussion
I sent this comments letter to the author of an article on voting systems:
I agree that the best voting systems use rank-ballotiong. Regrettably,
Instant Runoff (IRV) is not one of those best voting systems.
Though the best methods use rank balloting, the merit of a rank-balloting
voting system
Chris Benham chrisbenham-at-bigpond.com |EMlist| wrote:
Russ,
Assuming that by "drop" a candidate you mean "eliminate, and drop from
the ballots, and then
proceed as if the candidate had never existed", this is the big fallacy
in your last post:
As you drop candidates, you cannot get a CW unti
Russ,
You wrote (Tue.Apr.12):
"I just realized that two Condorcet-Approval hybrid
methods that I had thought were distinct are actually
equivalent. This may have been pointed out already,
and it may even be obvious to some, but it was a
significant realization to me nonetheless. (If it
*has* been p
Hi Mike,
In our current discussion of voter strategy, we seem to be talking
largely at cross-purposes. You accuse me of ignoring points of yours which
I have actually read and tried to take into account in my reply. I suggest
that we will have a more productive discussion if we first cla
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
"Flat-out lie". Russ feels that if he says something strongly enough,
emotionally enough, to show how much he at least claims to believe it,
that will convince others that it must be true.
Several people posted to EM to point out ambiguities an
Folks,
I just realized that two Condorcet-Approval hybrid methods that I had
thought were distinct are actually equivalent. This may have been
pointed out already, and it may even be obvious to some, but it was a
significant realization to me nonetheless. (If it *has* been pointed
out, please d
12 matches
Mail list logo
