Judging from what I was saying the other day about strategy for MMPO & wv,
maybe it's time to question the value of rank-balloting, when optimal
strategy can, and always will in acceptable/unacceptable situations, involve
equal ranking (with MMPO) or favorite-burial (with wv).
Some criteria
Mike,
--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> The Sincere Optimality for Acceptable Candidates Criterion (SOACC):
>
> If, for some particular voter, the election is an acceptable/unacceptable
> situation, then that voter should be able to get his/her best outcome while
> voting all of
Mike,
--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I notice that Jobst, Kevin, and someone whose initials I didn't recognize,
> strongly disagree with having AERLO as an option.
>
> To those 3 people, I say: The nice thing about an option is that it's
> optional. You don't have to use it.
When I described the acceptable/unacceptable strategy of MMPO with AERLO,
that suggests that MMPO with AERLO mets something that is, in some ways,
stronger than Strong FBC. It has occurred to me that a criterion should be
written to describe that advantage, and that's the purpose of this posti
About wv acceptable/unacceptable strategy, I should clarify that it seems to
me that unleess you're fairly sure which acceptabale candidate will be the
one whom you can help to win, in the event that there is such a candidate,
you should equa-rank tahe acceptable candidates in 1st place.
I s
Jobst,
In answer to a question from Mike Ossipoff
About the part about equal ranking resulting in candidates having the
same probabililty of winning:
It's impossible for me to give two candidates equal probability of
winning by ranking them equal. Did the question mean "equal effect on
their wi
Dear Mike!
Thank you for taking the time to have a look at the questionaire and
for your comments.
You wrote:
> It asked if a method should force people to vote honestly. I answered
> "--" because the freedom to vote honestly is important, rather than
> being forced to.
I did not meant "force" w
Jobst recently gave a nice, but rather elaborate geographical example with
different winners for different methods.
With a more limited objective in mind (showing the inadequacy of mere ordinal
information) I present a simpler example:
This example is in the form of two related scenarios that
Title: Nanson
Sorry, folks, my enthusiasm ran away with me in my earlier message. If candidate A is the Nanson winner, it is still possible for candidate B to beat A in a pairwise contest, so in this case the average voter ranks B above A. It is still true, however, that the average voter
Hi,
On Jun 14, 2005, at 12:46, James Green-Armytage wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm announcing this change as requested by the poll: I've changed the
"must"s on several questions to "should"s. I'll give a brief argument
for
the change here, but if the change is unpopular, others are free to
reve
Hello Ken,
Nice ideas. Correlation seems like a useful tool that could be applied
also elsewhere than with Borda. It sure is more natural (and wider)
than the normal clone definitions (unfortunately not as simple but of
course so are peoples' opinions).
Borda has some problems with strategic
On Jun 9, 2005, at 07:45, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
Which is better, a winner supported by half the voters plus one, or a
winner with the largest approval rating?
What is needed, I'd say, is consensus, not regarding the "best
method," but simply upon the characteristics and likely -- or
pref
Hello Ken,
On Jun 10, 2005, at 19:07, Ken Kuhlman wrote:
So, CIBR appears to be less than ideal, which stems from the fact
that the weakest candidate isn't necessarily eliminated first.
I'm not sure what the negative effect of not eliminating the weakest
first are. But I just want to point o
Hi folks,
The "essential questions" poll on electowiki inspired me to start
another
poll with the same format, but where instead of agreeing/disagreeing with
statements of principle, we will be rating single winner methods on a
scale from 0 to 10.
http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Method_e
Hi folks,
I'm announcing this change as requested by the poll: I've changed the
"must"s on several questions to "should"s. I'll give a brief argument for
the change here, but if the change is unpopular, others are free to revert
it.
Example: the question "Raising X on one ballot wi
James Green-Armytage James_Green-Armytage-at-antioch-college.edu
|EMlist| wrote:
Russ, you write:
Let me explain how I intuitively think about clones. Forget the formal
definition and just think of clones as being perfectly identical to each
other.
Even though it strikes some people
Russ Paielli 6049awj02-at-sneakemail.com |EMlist| wrote:
Chris Benham chrisbenham-at-bigpond.com |EMlist| wrote:
Russ,
I agree with Kevin V.'s last post in this thread. You wrote:
The same considerations apply to the "top-two Approval pairwise
runoff" method I suggested a few days ago. If t
17 matches
Mail list logo
