At 05:17 PM 9/14/2005, Simmons, Forest wrote:
(1) Pick 400 registered voters at random. Give them time off work,
and have them study the candidates carefully and decide a tentative
winner by some reputable method (like DMC, Shulze, Approval, Asset
Voting, etc.) It will definitely be worth
At 07:11 PM 9/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, among the things that would happen should an accurate polling be
sufficient to successfully strategically vote would be the creation
of voters who would no longer supply accurate information to the poll takers.
Many of those
At 01:34 AM 9/15/2005, Rob Lanphier wrote:
My main goal is to correctly find the candidate who would beat every
other candidate in a head-to-head election, because I believe that
candidate is likely the best candidate for the position.
As I have written, there seems to be two distinct
Rob--
You wrote:
I'd said:
Nasty enough to make voters bury their favorite?
Nope. That incentive will never exist withApproval or Range Voting.
You replied:
That wasn't what I was referring to. Where do I draw the Approval
line?
I reply:
That's what makes Approval more fun.
You
I suggested the power-truncation option as a way of further removing
strategy dilemma from the FBC-complying rank methods. If you mark the
power-truncation box on your ballot, then everyone whom you don't rank is
scored as if you'd ranked _all_ of the other candidates over him/her. So
power
Big thing I read from this is that if voters fail to rank sincerely, they
need some crash education.
Perhaps plotters can profit from carefully planned insincere votes, but
any other deviation from sincerity is suicide.
DWK
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:38:31 + MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Adam--
Puzzling where this comes from.
If the voters are to vote, they still need to decide who to vote for.
These committees look like a lot of work - remember that there are many
elections on a normal election day - some perhaps with districts as small
as one precinct.
Cure for this nonsense is
Hi Mike,
I'm going to respond a little out of order.
On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 01:23 +, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
But you haven't shown that the way I would vote in a Condorcet election is
stupid. Saying it isn't enough.
[...]
Let's not sling namecalling around unless we can show that it's true.
