I learned STV about three years ago.
At the time Hare quota appeared to me the most
proportional quota and thus, in my humble opinion,
the best quota.
Later some website presented the fact that most political
scientist now recommend Droop Quota because reaching only half
of the Hare quota is
Dear Mike!
You insist that it doesn't matter what prefer means and simultaneously define
this:
Definition of sincere voting:
A voter votes sincerely if s/he doesn't falsify a preference, or fail to
vote every preference that the balloting system in use would have allowed
him/her to vote
MDDA *if* all votes are full rank orderings, is just the Smith set
and often yields a tied election. In fact often the Smith set is the entire
set of candidates. (In most of Australia full rank orderings - i.e. none
omitted -
are demanded by law.)
This seems a severe problem with MDDA and
Incidentally, Deluxe MDDA is probably even worse than un-deluxe ranked-ballot
methods
with respect to add-top failure, no-show paradoxes, and the like, because you
can
use the approval counts quite easily to set up bad scenarios where the new
voter creates (unfortunately for him) a Condorcet
MDDA fails add top. That is, if you add some identical honest votes ranking
A top,
that can harm A (e.g. by creating a Condorcet winner [who is not A]
who then wins, whereas previously there was a Condorcet cycle and A was the
winner
on approval counts).
Now this may not technically count as
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com writes:
EM members--
This is a copy of a message that I intend to post at the Condorcet mailing
list. I have just finished requesting membership in that mailing list. I
don't know how often it takes to be approved for membership, and so I'd like
to
See below.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Lanphier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 2:08 AM
To: Paul Kislanko
Cc: 'MIKE OSSIPOFF'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why truncation resistance is important (RE: [EM] Re:
Rob: MDDA vsBeatpathWinner)
On Sat,
Warren,
--- Warren Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
MDDA *if* all votes are full rank orderings, is just the Smith set
and often yields a tied election. In fact often the Smith set is the entire
set of candidates. (In most of Australia full rank orderings - i.e. none
omitted -
are
Ted,
--- Araucaria Araucana [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
So instead of doing all your work by email and forcing people to reference
each
message and apply differences and additions in their heads, why not create
some
pages on electowiki? For example, here's a place to fill in your method:
Jobst--
Oh shit.
Why can't you send me an erroneous criticism of my criteria, like everyone
else? :-)
I've gotten so used to erroneous criticisms, that I was sure that yours must
be one, but of course it wasn't.
Maybe the best solution is to just say that my criteria only apply if
But, for one thing, my
sincerity definition is only for use with my criteria, not for evaluation of
voters and their motivations. For another thing, that voter shouldn't
entirely blame my definition. Surely she would have to admit that she
contributed at least partly to the definition-mismatch
11 matches
Mail list logo
