James Green-Armytage jarmyta-at-antioch-college.edu |EMlist| wrote:
To Mike Ossipoff,
Mike, you wrote:
Before I start, let me say that I resent some people's implication that
there's no significant difference between me and Russ, as regards
behavioral
level, off-topicness, and negative worth.
Having been the moderator of a highly contentious newsgroup, where
arguments were rooted in differences which have stood for centuries and
where, offline, they can and do lead to serious and major violence, I have
a suggestion.
First of all, there are two basic forms of organization,
According to recent issues of The Independent
(serious London daily paper), there is now momentum
building for voting reform for the House of Commons
(first-past-the-post, single-member constituency at
the moment).
Of course this follows the recent election there.
There are a number of articles
Abd ulRahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having been the moderator of a highly contentious newsgroup, where
arguments were rooted in differences which have stood for centuries and
where, offline, they can and do lead to serious and major violence, I have
a suggestion. ...
Larry
Stephen Turner Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:07 PM
According to recent issues of The Independent
(serious London daily paper), there is now momentum
building for voting reform for the House of Commons
(first-past-the-post, single-member constituency at the moment).
cut
IRV, Mixed-member
Dear Abd ulRahman!
Welcome to the list from me, too.
What do you think about the following story (leading to a group decision
method somewhat similar to DMC):
Consider a group of people having to decide for one out of a number of
options.
At first, they may think that deciding by a simple
Hi Abd,
As you say, we are all busy people. Unfortunately I don't have time
to reply to each of your most recent points right now.
In both my post and my writings on the DMC web page, I was trying to
explain the method, not the motivation behind it. I'm afraid that for
the moment I'll have to
Am I the only person who sees the irony in awarding another poster an award for posts with personal attacks, and naming the award aftera thirdposter?
Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
Election-methods mailing list - see
Alex Small wrote:
Am I the only person who sees the irony in awarding another poster an
award for posts with personal attacks, and naming the award after a
third poster?
I don't know.
However, I never read that particular post.
I assume this award was granted and named by Mike or Russ?
First of all, I didn't, do anything that I'm aware of to cause my name to be
capitalized on the list. I have no idea why it's capitalized, or why that
should bother anyone.
James--
You said:
Mike, you seem to have missed the point of Rob's recent post. I will
copy
it here:
I don't know
There isn't a list moderator. There have been postings to EM that make
that
abundantly obvious.
Yes. And you keep on providing examples.
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Mike,
My reply follows...
you wrote:
I really like those utopian ideals. As someone pointed out, all it takes
is
one person who doesn't share those ideals and has no honesty or
principles,
and then those ideals are out the window. Such a person joined this list
fairly recently.
James Green-Armytage wrote eloquently about the feelings of most of us
who've watched the personal argument. I would like to add this, if I may be
permitted.
I came to this list to learn from folks who knew more about a subject in
which I had developed an interest, and I appreciate the help that
At 12:02 PM 5/12/2005, Andrew Myers wrote:
I have another suggestion: ostracism.
There are a wide range of options. Ostracism takes many forms. The most
harmless is that other members of the list set filters so they don't have
to see the mail, or just skip it. But a raging flame war can harm the
At 01:30 PM 5/12/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
In both my post and my writings on the DMC web page, I was trying to
explain the method, not the motivation behind it.
Note that good explanation for a complex proposal will include motivation
because motivation for an aspect of the proposal allows
Curt Siffert siffert at museworld.com writes:
I recently posted this addendum to the Arrow's Theorem page on
wikipedia: It was immediately deleted for bias.
The theorem is criticized by many vote theorists, however, for
depending on flawed requirements. [...] It is the final (IIAC)
Q wrote
Just a thought, but stating many vote theorists without providing
supporting links to referreed articles might have led to the
bias decision.
I'm not saying that your argument is like those supporting Intelligent
Design or denying Global Warming, but perhaps as a result of the
Curt Siffert wrote:
[...] In other words, some vote theorists believe Arrow's
theorem improperly asserts that passing the IIAC is a requirement to be
considered a satisfactory voting method. [...]
I can't speak for the theorists, but that's not how I read Arrow's
theorum. For one thing, he
Paul Kislanko wrote:
I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in which no one has
found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who has found fault
with it is not a vote theorist.
But Arrow didn't prove that IIA compliance was necessary, or even
desirable (although the
Bart Ingles wrote in respone to
Paul Kislanko wrote:
I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in
which no one has
found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who
has found fault
with it is not a vote theorist.
But Arrow didn't prove that IIA compliance
Paul Kislanko wrote:
We weren't talking about that. We were discussing election theorists found
Arrow's proof flawed.
The term flawed is ambiguous, and could mean something other than
invalid. Although I can imagine that the Wikipeople might have taken
it that way.
Election-methods
21 matches
Mail list logo
