Dave K:
> Range voting is very robustly the best among about 30 systems tried including
> a couple condorcet systems according to my giant
> comparative Bayesian regret study in 2000. OK, maybe you can attack that.
> Maybe you can say I did not put in your favorite system or favorite
> voting str
In the statement that Rob LeGrand posted from the CAV/AAV board, I
find the following statement from the footnote particularly
interesting:
> Although Range Voting provides a generalization of Approval Voting,
> it is not obvious how many levels of approval voters should be
> allowed to indicate:
"trusted expert" is the heart of this debate. Such do not deserve to
exist except as a result of having demonstrated being experts.
DWK
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:19:22 -0700 Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 23:48 -0400, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:35:19 -0700 Rob Lan
How about this, I'm going for writing the law such that the elections
official in charge can choose from a few approved, good enough,
election methods. So, you pass this law once, and various places try
Condorcet, IRNR, even IRV, and it's a simple thing for state or
county elections officia
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:54:59 -0400 Warren Smith wrote in part:
Range voting is very robustly the best among about 30 systems tried including
a couple condorcet systems according to my giant
comparative Bayesian regret study in 2000. OK, maybe you can attack that.
Maybe you can say I did not p
At 12:54 PM 8/15/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
Also range is TACTICALLY THE BEST in terms of the PLAN of
appealing to US 3rd parties
Convince me that, say, the Libertarian party would not be interested in
being able to receive votes for its candidate which the candidate could
then distribute
Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote Aug 15 13:22:50 PDT 2005:
>At 04:07 PM 8/13/2005, RLSuter at aol.com wrote:
>>As an example of strategic campaigning, Ralph Nader could have
>>used a strategy in either 2000 or 2004 involving campaigning
>>strongly up to and through the fall TV debates but promising to
>>w
At 05:54 PM 8/14/2005, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Sadly, it appears as though there's a proposal to change the Wikipedia
Arbitration Committee election method from Approval to First Past The
Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Proposed_modification
The approval strategy that maximizes voting power (thus minimizing the
probability of an approval voter's regret) in a close three way race is this:
First decide your preference order among the three major candidates, say A>B>C.
Of course you should approve A and leave C unapproved. Approve B
At 12:22 PM 8/14/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
I disagree with the claim they are. Democracy is about
choice by the voters.
Actually, voting is only one device used in a democracy, and not the most
important factor. The most important factor is the consent of the governed.
Elections can actuall
At 11:24 AM 8/14/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
Well, in our real-world-voter study of range & approval: USA voters
by statistically clear margins, told us they wanted to stay with plurality and
NOT switch to either range or approval voting.
I'd suggest that the answers may have depended on how the
At 04:07 PM 8/13/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As an example of strategic campaigning, Ralph Nader could have
used a strategy in either 2000 or 2004 involving campaigning
strongly up to and through the fall TV debates but promising to
withdraw after the debates if polls had shown that he had no
Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
At 08:25 PM 8/11/2005, Rob Lanphier wrote:
However, the Condorcet winner criterion is quite easily and
unambiguously applied to Range Voting ballots, since a ranked ballot can
be easily derived from a Range Voting ballot.
What do you do with candidates with equal ra
At 08:25 PM 8/11/2005, Rob Lanphier wrote:
However, the Condorcet winner criterion is quite easily and
unambiguously applied to Range Voting ballots, since a ranked ballot can
be easily derived from a Range Voting ballot.
What do you do with candidates with equal ratings?
In fact, the Condorc
At 07:38 PM 8/11/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
More generally could consider, say, "asset voting" an unconventional
voting method I invented
http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html #77
which also was similar to an idea of Forrest Simmons.
It was designed to be a multiwinner method but can
At 01:17 PM 8/11/2005, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Regarding the example: 59 people out of 100 prefer B to A. Under the
principle of "one person, one vote", it's extremely difficult to argue
that A should win.
"Should" is undefined.
Giving it a definition, that candidate should win who will best uni
> >Rob Lanphier re the Center for Range Voting:
>If you had the kind of backing that CVD has, I might believe you.
However, in terms of popular voting reforms, only CVD can make the claim
that they've got the political organization and the momentum to follow
through right now. CAV/AAV is making
James,
--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Markus Schulze Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:10 PM
> > I have made the experience that the members of Wikipedia's
> > "Arbitration Committee" (ArbCom) work rather independently
> > and that the one ArbCom member is rarely willing to rev
Rob Lanphier Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 9:46 AM
> As you saw earlier, some people on Wikipedia are considering
> a switch to Bloc voting (plurality-at-large) for a multi-seat
> election, away from Approval.
Whatever the merits or de-merits of multi-seat Approval, I am sure Bloc Voting
(multi
Markus Schulze Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:10 PM
> I have made the experience that the members of Wikipedia's
> "Arbitration Committee" (ArbCom) work rather independently
> and that the one ArbCom member is rarely willing to revert
> the decision of the other ArbCom member.
>
> Therefore,
Dear Rob Lanphier,
I have made the experience that the members of Wikipedia's
"Arbitration Committee" (ArbCom) work rather independently
and that the one ArbCom member is rarely willing to revert
the decision of the other ArbCom member.
Therefore, I suggest that the ArbCom should be elected by
a
Hi folks,
As you saw earlier, some people on Wikipedia are considering a switch to
Bloc voting (plurality-at-large) for a multi-seat election, away from
Approval.
I had always thought Approval made the most sense here, but I'm starting
to see the wisdom of the criticism. With a very large field,
On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 17:20 -0400, Warren Smith wrote:
> >robla: Condorcet has zero chance in 2005. It has a small chance in 2010, and
> >better than even odds in 2050. That's assuming we ignore your advice
> >and actually continue our work.
>
> --what is your strategic plan? One can make stati
23 matches
Mail list logo
