--- Diego Tello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> En Ecuador, vienen las elecciones pluripersonales en Octubre de
> 2006, y
> hasta el moemnto no tenemos un método de reparto de escaños,
> teniamos el
> Método de D'Hondt o Jefferson hasta el 2002, luego pasamos al Métod
> Imperiali, y actualmente quere
--- 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
I do not suggest that anyone has lied, but I do wonder whether these
people who have told Mike that they frequently have an incentive to
betray their favourite under IRV really understand what they said, or
if they even understood the tally method of IRV. I have queried a
lot of Australians on ho
Hi Mike,
Your statements about insincere voting in Australia don't ring true
with me, and I know a lot of Australians.
Would you please share your information concerning Australians voting
insincerely.
I would have characterised Australian voters as taking seriously the
opportunity to express th
Firstly, I think that Duverger's theory is wrong and that it
certainly doesn't deserve the status of "law". His theory states
that a first-past-the-post election system leads to a two-party
system. It is wrong because there are counter examples. I conclude
that there is some other explanation fo
My favourite approval strategy to recommend generally is "vote for
your strategic plurality candidate and every candidate you like
better." (suggested to me by Marc LeBlanc)
Anthony
--- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'm trying to understand the argument in favor of app
This is an example of where expert jargon is counter-intuitive to a
beginner.
If a completed ranked ballot looks like this:
CandiateRank
A 2
B 3
C 1
D 4
We tend to loosely say that "C is ranked 'higher' than B" which is
counter-intuitive because the nu
As Forests, says, the "above the line" prxoy voting is only a feature
of the Senate, the PR house.
I agree with James Gilmour the Australian election of federal
senators is a perversion of STV. The parties do not publicise their
proxy ranking of the candidates, anc consequently, voters don't kno
Thank you for than information, Steve and Bart,
Both sets of data seem to confirm that the non-existance of a sincere
condorcet winner is not "probable". I would say: in a condorcet
election, if there happen to be several contenders, then the non
existance of a condorcet winner is a definate poss
--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Duff > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:18 AM
> > I think James exaggerates.
>
> Now who is exaggerating? We all know about the "table cloth ballot
> paper" in the NSW election of
> March 1999.
--- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The facility for party voting in
> the Australian Federal Senate STV-PR elections is a gross
> perversion of STV. It has reduced STV to
> just another party list PR system.
Background: The ballot is divided into two by a horizontal line.
Below th
Warren,
In both scenarios you have assumed a cyclic property of the
electorate in order to demonstrate a cyclic result. You therefore
are not demonstrating very much.
Anthony
--- Warren Schudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, [iso-8859-1] Anthony Duff wrote:
Jobst wrote in part...
> ... as there is no
> sincere CW (which is quite probable as we know!). This is because
> whatever candidate A gets elected, there is always a majority
> prefering some B who can elect B by voting "B > all others" without
> there being any counter-strategy to this threat.
--- Bill Lewis Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not into proportional representation. I prefer my
> representatives to
> be tied to geography, not ideology. Geography is concrete, and
> ideology
> is too abstract. Call me old-fashioned.
>
> I'm also against re-districting. Ever. If
I am replying to:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01542.html
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF"
Subject: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:47:47 +
Mike wrote, in part,
>... SSD, RP, and PC are
>the Condorcet versions to propose for public elections
--- Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> Anthony Duff wrote:
> >
> > --- Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> >
> > A typical voting pattern in some Australian electorates is
> > 45 ABC
> > 45 CBA
> > 5 BAC
> >
--- Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> >
> On the other hand, I actually met an Australian lady who said that
> she
> regularly voted for minor candidates whom she didn't even like,
> just to
> keep her favorite major-party representative from getting too full
> of
> himself.
That woul
--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> Bill continued:
>
>
> Even in countries where voting systems other than plurality are in
> general
> use, strategic voting is far from universal (and in many cases,
> when it is
> used it is done so at the urging and direction of party
> spokespe
--- Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
>
> For the record, our California governor (Arnold) is proposing
> something
> along those lines, of having non-partisan judges draw district
> boundaries. Unfortunately, since judge usually start out with
> some
> party affiliation before
--- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People might be interested to know that here in the Australian
> state
> imaginatively called South Australia we have the electoral
> boudaries redrawn after each State election (every four years) by
> an
> independent commission which is simply ch
At least where I am from, there is a strong cultural tradition of
most voters faithfully following someone's "party ticket", and I
think there is a simple explanation as to why.
The local electorates use IRV. About 90% of voters vote their first
preference for either labor or liberal. When the "
--- Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anthony Duff suggested that MinMax meets Later-no-harm. I don't
> think
> that's correct, though.
I made the suggestion on the basis of:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00018.html
(Date: Fri, 07 Mar
--- Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS (EVSs)
>
> 3. MUST allow me to verify that my vote was entered and counted
> correctly
No. This is bad. If you can verify your vote (after leaving the polling place) you
can sell your vote.
If y
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A non-encrypted voting receipt that identifies the votes cast by a voter creates
> potential for mischief, particularly if it is retained by the individual voter.
> Thugs could demand to see the receipt and intimidate voters, imposing physical,
> economic or social
--- Alex Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 00:30:26 -0800 (PST)
>Say that a legislator resigns or dies in the middle of his term.
...
>Now, suppose we elect the legislators via PR. How to fill the vacancy?
The method of the Australian Senate is to have the party, to wh
Just a reaction to one little thing that Donald said...
--- Donald Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> Hi Robertas,
...
> If an election is supposed to be a non-partisan election, then the Hare
> quota should be used with STV. The Hare will not average the votes of the
> candidates of any p
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Bart Ingles wrote in
part:
http://search.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Search
- Looking for more? Try the new Yahoo! Search>The only large-scale demonstration of IRV we have is Australia's lower
>>house, where district elections are virtually all bipartisan (there are
>>ap
I concur will what Chris Benham (Date: Wed, 06 Aug
2003) wrote.
--- Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris,
>
> Good points.
>
> --- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit
> :
> > For a start I think all good election methods
> should allow and be
> > able to handle the voter
--- "John B. Hodges" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> I have a question of my own.
...
>"Party List" systems and "Single Transferable Vote"
> systems.
...
> My
> question is this: what is there about these two
> methods that does not
> satisfy?
In Australia/NSW, for the upper houses, we use
--- Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Re: [EM] recent postings
> My perspective on single winner methods has moved
> more and more towards
> the point of view that ranked ballots are costly in
> terms of voter
> patience (as opposed to the cost of voting machines,
> ballot counting,
> etc
--- Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
In Australia in Federal and most State elections
> there is a ridiculous
> and indefensible requirement for voters to put a
> number in every box.
> Most voters (certainly nearly all those with no
> clear, sincere second
> and lower preferences)
I think the turkey issue is a real problem for
condorcet and approval. A simple solution is to
filter out the turkeys before they get on the ballot.
--- Adam Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That said, I have argued in both my recent messages
> that it's pretty
> ridiculous to expect a can
32 matches
Mail list logo
