James replying to Mike, on the topic of MM(po)'s FBC compliance...
>
>And it wasn't based on the behavior of one person in an Internet poll. It
>was based on one person iln an Internet poll and many thousands of voters
>in
>Australian IRV elections.
We agree that plain IRV gives strong i
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
Russ continued:
Mike then explained that he couldn't handle the Python convention of
using indentation, in lieu of "endif" and "endfor" delimiters, to define
the logical structure.
I comment:
No, I didn't say that. I said that e-mail often c
James says:
I answered this part of Mike's argument as well, in the earlier message.
In short, I don't think that sweeping conclusions about voter strategy
should be made based on the behavior of one person in an internet poll.
I comment:
"Sweeping" is always a negative-slant word. How
I never completely replied to this before, at least not to one of its
completely false claims.
Russ said, in January:
A couple of years ago, Mike expressed an interest in learning to do some
programming, which he had never done.
I replied:
Actually no, that isn't correct. Russ freely makes th
I'll take that bet if Mike agrees to split the fifty bucks with me.
Just kidding.
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:16 PM, Russ Paielli wrote:
I challenge Mike to figure out how to change his name in the "from"
line of his emails from all caps to normal capitalization like
everyone else uses. It's bad
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
AERLO for MMPO:
For use with MMPO, it would be better if AERLO doesn't mention cycles at
all. It should just say:
A voter may specify a line in his/her ranking, to indicate that if no
above-line candidate wins, then s/he wants to promote al
Russ says:
Let's get this straight. Mike thinks that "Beatpathwinner" is a good
method, yet he could not program it correctly because he doesn't "have
Python."
I reply:
No, you haven't got it straight. I didn't say that I could not program it
correctly. I said that I wrote and sent a correct
James replying to Mike...
Mike:
>
>I shouldn't start repeating things for you again, but I observed that
>behavior with someone voting in a BeatpathWinner election. Though I said
>that I wouldn't favorite-bury with that method, and it isn't really
>necessary, the person did it anyway, ranking a
Let's get this straight. Mike thinks that "Beatpathwinner" is a good
method, yet he could not program it correctly because he doesn't "have
Python." This would be sad if it weren't so funny. Python is available
for free public download at python.org, of course (not to mention
pre-installed with
I read that message because it was a new subject, and because I didn't think
it was a contentious subject. Then, because the posting was short, and
because the statements were being made for the first time, I felt that they
rate one reply. Replying to this doesn't mean that I'll reply to addit
Russ said, 11 days ago:
You might also recall that Mike's "beatpathwinner" algorithm
I comment:
It wasn't "Mike's". It was from Steve, and I said so.
Russ continues:
that had
appeared at http://ElectionMethods.org was a fifth-order algorithm,
whereas it should have been third-order.
I comm
James responding to Mike, on the subject of MM(po)'s FBC compliance...
Mike wrote:
>I've told why FBC is worth the loss of those other criteria: FBC is very
>much related to the matter of drastic defensive strategy need. Those
>other
>criteria affect that less. Voters seem to feel a need to bury
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
AERLO for MMPO:
For use with MMPO, it would be better if AERLO doesn't mention cycles at
all. It should just say:
A voter may specify a line in his/her ranking, to indicate that if no
above-line candidate wins, then s/he wants to promote al
I said to add SFC to the unenhanced criteria trade, as if one were trading
CWP for MMPO. But the trade being discussed was SD for MMPO. Both of those
methods meet SFC, and so SFC isn't part of that trade.
So, as James said, it's a trade of Smith, Condorcet, MMC, and CL for FBC and
LNH.
I d
AERLO for MMPO:
For use with MMPO, it would be better if AERLO doesn't mention cycles at
all. It should just say:
A voter may specify a line in his/her ranking, to indicate that if no
above-line candidate wins, then s/he wants to promote all above-line
candidates to 1st place, and have a rec
James,
--- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> >Great... I've already said all of that. In any case, I don't think this
> >weakens my point much.
>
> Well, we disagree there. It seems to directly contradict your point that
> later-no-harm is important because it "gives vote
James replying to Kevin, on the topic of minmax(pairwise opposition)...
James:
>
>> If the electorate is ready for something as complicated as that, then
>> beatpath(wv), ranked pairs(wv), and river(wv) will be viable options.
>> Aren't these methods more elegant than CDTT,MMPO?
Kevin:
>
>Why
James replying to Mike.
>MMPO meets FBC, WDSC, and SFC.
(All criteria that Mike made up, I think.) If we're comparing MMPO to
beatpath(wv), then the only new compliance listed above is FBC. More on
the significance of that in a bit.
>FBC is the most basic guarantee to reassure the timid
18 matches
Mail list logo
