Dear Russ!
You wrote:
> You make an excellent point. Rather than defending Approval, Approval
> advocates should go on the offensive and let the opponents explain why
> the voter *shouldn't* be allowed to approve more than one candidate.
>
> Having said that, let me play devil's advocate and give
James replying to Mike.
MMPO meets FBC, WDSC, and SFC.
(All criteria that Mike made up, I think.)
I comment:
I wrote those criteria. "Made up" implies some sort of falsification of
fact. James, the criteria that I "made up" are more relevant than the
criteria that you copy.
James say
Abd ulRahman Lomax abd-at-lomaxdesign.com |EMlist| wrote:
At 01:25 PM 6/7/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 at 21:20 UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
> What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
ERIRV(whole):
Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting, whole [vote
Hi folks,
I was recently asked to clarify the statement on my web site that
approval voting fails independence of clones.
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/define.htm#clones
This was my reply. Debate is welcome...
___
First, I use a consistent mean
At 10:05 PM 6/8/2005, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
No one can guess what would happen in a public election if we used a
better voting system, or if we had the fair media coverage that I
described. So I won't debate with you how Nader would do. But I will say
that one rarely meets a Democrat voter who t
At 12:53 PM 6/8/2005, Juho Laatu wrote:
They might also trust a uniform voting method science community telling
them that some certain method is the best one. This is however maybe the
biggest problem of the Condorcet community - no agreement on which method
is the best.
The problem, of cours
Kevin,
Regarding the Plurality criterion, I wrote:
That of course should have been:
The "pairwise version" says that X must not win if there are more
voters that rank Y above all the other candidates than there are
voters that rank X over *any* candidate.
You responded:
I should say fi
At 02:34 PM 6/8/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
Let me summarize two sides of the main argument.
On one side, we have those who say,
Let everyone have their say, even if they choose more than one
candidate. Every voice should be heard.
[with mumbled grumblings about overly stringent
Mike,
In reference to my question about MMPO in the 49A, 24B,27C>B scenario
(a MMPO tie), you wrote:
If one of the 24 "B" voters ranks A in 2nd place, that ends the tie
between B and C. Now there are 50 voters ranking A over C, but only 49
ranking A over B. C;s largest votes-against is now 5
I'd said:
Amazingly, MMPO gives protection at both ends, so that you don't need to
rank someone over your favorite, but, in the other direction, you also
have no dis-incentive to extend your ranking as low as you want to.
I have recently discussed this with Kevin.
I argue tha
Curt says:
I've *never* heard anyone allege that Nader would have been Condorcet
Winner. That would mean the population would have preferred him head-
to-head over the Democrat in sincere votes.
I reply:
Curt, check the text that you copied (below), and you'll find that I was
referring to p
Most of what Russ said consists of familiar arguments that you arleady know
the answer to. I'll just make one comment:
Russ says:
Oh, so now the justification for regulating political speech over cable
is that the cable company doesn't own all the land their cable
traverses? By that logic, th
Chris--
Referring to your MMPO tie example:
If one of the 24 "B" voters ranks A in 2nd place, that ends the tie between
B and C. Now there are 50 voters ranking A over C, but only 49 ranking A
over B. C;s largest votes-against is now 50. B's largest votes-against is
still 49. B wins.
As I s
James,
--- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Mike, you wrote:
> >Amazingly, MMPO gives protection at both ends, so that you don't need to
> >rank someone over your favorite, but, in the other direction, you also
> >have
> >no dis-incentive to extend your ranking as low as you
Chris,
--- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> That of course should have been:
> The "pairwise version" says that X must not win if there are more
> voters that rank Y above all the other candidates than there are voters
> that rank X over *any* candidate.
I should say first of all
On 7 Jun 2005 at 21:01 UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:25 PM 6/7/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote: >On 6 Jun 2005 at 21:20
UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
>> > What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
>>
>>ERIRV(whole):
>>
>>Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting,
>>They might also trust a uniform voting method science community telling
them that some certain method is the best one.<<
ROTFLMAO
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Hello Anthony,
On Jun 7, 2005, at 08:06, Anthony Duff wrote:
The pertinent question is whether people here have wildly exaggerated
the importance of strategic voting, and whether simple minmax
methods, such as PC or MMPO are good enough.
This is a good question. Strategic voting may be a big
Ted,
In response to Abdul asking:
What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
You wrote:
ERIRV(whole):
Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting, whole [votes counted for
equal rank].
In other words, each round of the runoff becomes an approval election
rather than a single-v
At 04:54 AM 6/8/2005, James Gilmour wrote:
Abd ulRahman Lomax Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:01 AM
> Let me make sure I understand. If we had a face-to-face meeting, and an
> election was held by show of hands, which is not an uncommon thing, I've
> never seen a rule that prevents a person fr
At 02:09 AM 6/8/2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
[I had written:]
> So promoting Approval voting might be as simple as pointing out the
> injustice of it. I can't see any reason for *preventing* a person from
> voting for more than one candidate. Allowing it merely adds to the
> freedom of the voter wi
At 01:11 AM 6/8/2005, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Russ's notion of free speech is based on the legal theory that money talks.
That's why Russ opposes campaign spending reforms in general.
Without accepting Mr. Ossipof's right to tell us how Russ thinks, I'll note
that I support Ossipof's pointing ou
At 10:28 AM 6/7/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
So I don't agree that MMPO has a grave problem with indecisiveness.
Take this often-discussed example:
49: A
24: B
27: C>B
MMPO scores: A52, B49, C49.
The result is a tie between B and C. Which "one vote" would you change
(and how) to change this
Abd ulRahman Lomax Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:01 AM
> Let me make sure I understand. If we had a face-to-face meeting, and an
> election was held by show of hands, which is not an uncommon thing, I've
> never seen a rule that prevents a person from voting for more than one
> candidate.
I've *never* heard anyone allege that Nader would have been Condorcet
Winner. That would mean the population would have preferred him head-
to-head over the Democrat in sincere votes.
On Jun 7, 2005, at 10:44 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
By the way, why would someone we know want a better voti
25 matches
Mail list logo
