Mike,
--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> In comparison to Approval, one fault of MMPO is that it doesn't let the
> voter fully vote against all of the unacceptable candidates. So is MMPO as
> good as Approval? Maybe not.
Interesting idea.
> But that can be fixed:
>
> Power Trun
1. The classification and ordering of the methods (candidates):
The number of people voting in the sections is closely related to how close
to the beginning they are. So the ordering of the methods matters.
The first section should be for methods claimed by someone to be the best.
Within tha
At 09:15 PM 6/16/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
THANK YOU - my first experience with this type of editing.
EASY to use.
Wiki, from Wiki-Wiki: "quick" or "informal" in Hawaiian
I assume politeness counts BIG - anyone can take a page out and edit it as
described below. BIG DEAL is to:
Do not
Araucaria Araucana araucaria.araucana-at-gmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
On 16 Jun 2005 at 14:30 UTC-0700, Anthony Duff wrote:
Perhaps there was something specific about the primary that you want
eliminated, but every party has to be able to choose a candidate.
Sure, let parties choose their candi
Maybe I'll start calling SSPCA the "Augmented Sincere Protection for
Candidates who are Acceptable" (ASPCA).
Mike Ossipoff
_
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.
Anthony,
I agree completely. I don't think that eliminating primaries should be
an objective of choosing an election method.
Yes, an "ideal" election method, if one exists, might make primaries
somewhat less important, but I seriously doubt any method can render
them completely unnecessary.
Of course if you rank Smith at two postitions, someone could say that if
both Smiths are over Jones, you're twice ranking Smith over Jones. But isn't
it true that there's a sense in which all you're saying is that Smith is
over Jones? Say you've got 2 Smiths over Jones, and one below Jones. Fi
In discussions about what could spoil a rank ballot, there's sometimes
agreement that the one way to spoil a rank ballot would be to rank a
candidate at more than one rank position.
Sure, it doesn't make sense to say that you like Smith more than Smith. Or
that you like Smith more than Jones
In comparison to Approval, one fault of MMPO is that it doesn't let the
voter fully vote against all of the unacceptable candidates. So is MMPO as
good as Approval? Maybe not.
But that can be fixed:
Power Truncation:
If the voter chooses the power truncation option, then any candidate whom
If we can't always get optimality while sincerely ranking the acceptable
candidates, at least we can offer what really matters: maximize the
probability that an acceptable will win.
Sincere Protection of Candidates who are Acceptable (SPCA):
If, for a particular voter, the election is an acc
THANK YOU - my first experience with this type of editing.
EASY to use.
I assume politeness counts BIG - anyone can take a page out and edit it as
described below. BIG DEAL is to:
Do not take it out until ready to edit.
Edit promptly.
AND, put it back so others can get in - you
At 06:38 PM 6/16/2005, James Green-Armytage wrote:
We need your participation in the method evaluation poll on
electowiki!
Just thought I'd add my comment here that this kind of activity is what I
think could really produce some useful results. Is there any kind of
consensus in this
At 02:10 PM 6/16/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
You all are missing the point of my original question.
Abd advocates allowing overvotes to instantly enable approval voting.
But sneaking approval in this way
I'm certainly not recommending "sneaking." Rather, as part of the reform
process, fi
At 11:12 AM 6/16/2005, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Does this mean you feel a system is "unfair" unless *every* voter can
select a representative? That sounds difficult to implement.
Yes, it *seems* that way. But, in fact, this is standard practice in
corporate governance. Every shareholder can either
I do not understand you:
First, you discard my words about primaries, as if they are not worth
rating as good, bad, or indifferent.
THEN you say primaries are your one and only topic
A point to remember is that primaries cannot be a top topic, more
important than voting method:
The
Hi folks,
We need your participation in the method evaluation poll on electowiki!
This is what it's all about, the bottom line of pretty much everything
that we discuss here: which methods do you consider to be better than
others?
Rate single winner methods on a scale from 0 to 1
At 05:53 PM 6/15/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
Approval voting is a reasonable first step. But what do you do about
current top-two runoffs, or primaries in general?
In the U.S. top-two runoffs are unusual, if I am correct, most elections
award victory to the plurality winner. We've been co
On 16 Jun 2005 at 14:30 UTC-0700, Anthony Duff wrote:
> Perhaps there was something specific about the primary that you want
> eliminated, but every party has to be able to choose a candidate.
Sure, let parties choose their candidate, but on their own dime. I
don't buy the argument that it is in
> It is not reasonable to force a party not to choose an official
candidate. Is this what you want? For example, do you think you
should have been able to vote for McCain as well as Bush in 2000?
McCain would've been a better choice.
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.
--- Araucaria Araucana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But sneaking approval in this way doesn't solve the more general
> problem of eliminating the primary. I *do* want to eliminate the
> primary, since it is merely an artifact of plurality/SVFPP.
The primary is not "merely an artifact of plurali
At 08:25 AM 6/16/2005, Andrew Myers wrote:
> Further, in a few days, so far, of searching, there seems to be a distinct
> lack of cogent arguments for the rule in the first place. As near as I can
> tell, the reason for it is a variant on "It seemed like the thing to do at
> the time." The rule i
On 15 Jun 2005 at 18:32 UTC-0700, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:15:50 +0200 (CEST) Kevin Venzke wrote:
>
>> Ted,
>> --- Araucaria Araucana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>>
>>>Approval voting is a reasonable first step. But what do you do about
>>>current top-two runoffs, or primarie
Hello,
--- Abd ulRahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> At 10:36 AM 6/15/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
>
>>Since Mike has stated that the purpose of AERLO is for
>>"acceptable/unacceptable" voters to enter below the acceptable set of
>>candidates, I suppose there's no reason not to
>>call
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 05:25:09PM -0400, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
> In a context where the norm is simple plurality, with overvotes resulting
> in the ballot being discarded (for the race with extra votes), the simplest
> reform is repealing the rule that discards such ballots. This simple chan
24 matches
Mail list logo
