At 05:28 PM 8/16/2005, Alex Small wrote:
First, as Paul Kislanko pointed out, with asset voting it wouldn't just be
about a handful of candidates. Any idiot with a following could (and
undoubtedly would) declare himself a candidate for
President. Evangelists, talk show hosts, actors, self-hel
At 04:12 PM 8/16/2005, Paul Kislanko wrote:
I want a solid "chain of evidence" from how my vote was ultimately counted
back to what I wrote on my ballot.
Yes. In true delegable proxy, you'd have that. But in secret-ballot Asset
Voting, you would not be able to prove that *your* ballot was act
Two things:First, as Paul Kislanko pointed out, with asset voting it wouldn't just be about a handful of candidates. Any idiot with a following could (and undoubtedly would) declare himself a candidate for President. Evangelists, talk show hosts, actors, self-help gurus, activists, psychics ("Ms.
At 03:13 PM 8/16/2005, Simmons, Forest wrote:
Asset voting (in its lone mark version) is one of the few methods simple
enough to have a decent chance among lazy U.S. voters, and it would be the
greatest possible improvement consistent with the simple lone mark ballot.
Absolutely, and it is gra
At 04:01 AM 8/16/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
It has heard of NY and lever machines - exactly what I vote on and think
about. Says they are able to handle elections with up to 300 candidates.
With range chewing up slots 10 times as fast as plurality, capacity
shrinks to 30 candidates.
This ass
"Imagine the drama we would have had in the Perot, Bush, Clinton election
that was referred to recently by Rob Lanphier. Any one of the three would
have had enough assets to make either of the others the winner. That's a lot
of political leverage! No responsible representative should or would bac
Asset voting (in its lone mark version) is one of the few methods simple enough
to have a decent chance among lazy U.S. voters, and it would be the greatest
possible improvement consistent with the simple lone mark ballot.
In Asset voting you vote for the candidate that you think would represen
At 05:05 PM 8/15/2005, Simmons, Forest wrote:
Unsophisticated voters might have to rely on the advice of their favorite
candidate or some other trusted advisor when they don't have a strong
feeling for approval and disapproval.
So, in 1992, had the voting method been Approval, Ross Perot might
On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 09:39 -0400, Warren Smith wrote:
> So anybody who is interested in third parties ever having
> a chance, would be advised NOT to foolishly advocate either IRV or Condorcet,
> but insetad would be advised to advocate RANGE VOTING (which experimentally
> favors third parties far
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:46:04 -0400 Warren Smith wrote:
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
