On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> IRV CANNOT AFFORD to do the complete vote counts that would permit
> comparison. Ballots sometimes are kept around for recounts - if these
> were counted by Condorcet rules we would have ammunition. Even here it
> would take a lot of recounting for, usua
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Craig Carey wrote:
> These are the facts:
> (1) you referred persons at Cambridge, to an article of Mr Shulze
> that wrongly claimed that his method got a pass under the test of
>monotonicity instead of fail.
>
> (2) These people at Cambridge university might soak up the
Sometimes I wonder why I bother replying to Craig; I've recently had a
more useful discussion with a bot on Usenet! However, having spotted
four errors in the first two paragraphs that he wrote concerning me,
I decided to persevere a little further in attempting to decipher his
message. I think t
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Adam Tarr wrote:
> I'll be "quoting" the text of the link from here out.
>
> >Condorcet, however, would tend to produce consensual results, in that the
> >conclusion tends to be support for the proposition which has the broadest
> >support, even though other propositions may h
Finally the dreadful Voting Review Committee at Cambridge has produced
its Report. I am unimpressed:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2003-04/weekly/5972/24.html
Any comments (and, better, refutations)?
Diana.
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Should the nominees have to be American? Unless people object that nominees
> have to be American, I nominate the mayor of London, a refreshingly
> outspoken and perceptive individual.
>
> Of course since I'm nominating him, I should look up his name.
T
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[re: yet another reinvention of the wheel that is gender-neutral pronouns]
> Initially the unfamiliar words will need to be explained in any document
> where they appear. Hopefully, over time, it will become better understood
> and the explanation will
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Bill Lewis Clark wrote:
> > IRV is not, in any way, an improvement - that is the point.
>
> I believe Mike would agree with you, but I don't think this is as
> clear-cut as you both seem to think it is.
>
> First and foremost, IRV is a change. Any change at all gets people
>
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Craig Carey wrote:
> Simulated annealing is using random numbers to get around multiple
> minima.
Why on earth does one need to "get around" multiple minima (I assume
you are talking local minima here ...) ? What is the problem with
multiple local minima? And why can't one u
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Craig Carey wrote:
> It won't be OK in politics. But this is just list for untrue statements
> that have no place in the design of quality preferential voting methods
> (particularly when Diana speaks. As for myself, shall be withdrawing
> from this deep dark hole without much
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote (of Matt):
> Yoiur protectiveness toward Markus is laudable, and I'm not criticizing
> that. But you need to understand that you're one of those people who, when
> something angers you or arouses your protective instinct, is ruled entirely
> by emotion, so
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Rob Speer wrote:
> People like Donald Davidson and Craig Carey say
Talking of Craig Carey, can someone please explain what his most
recent diatribe was on about? And whether it's worth my while
worrying about? (Since he's thrown Markus out of his private
party -- at least t
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Donald Davison wrote:
> Hi Diana, you wrote: " Am I way off base here and if so in what form ought
> I to be asking for the data such that no-one's privacy gets breached? I'd
> prefer the data in the form I requested, but as I'm particularly hoping to
> compare Condorcet meth
I think I mentioned a few weeks ago that I was trying to get
the data for 6 ballots that were held here in Cambridge to
decide some issues. The counts were conducted using IRV and
published in the normal form for such counts.
I received a reply from the administration yesterday informing
me that
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Paul Kislanko wrote:
> In any case, they called it "Instant Run-off" but when they described
> the method it sounded to me to be what this list would call Single
> Transferable Vote - (the ballots whose 1st place candidate receives the
> fewest first place votes in the first c
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Diana Galletly wrote:
^^
[my original article, which disappeared into the ether for nearly a
week before mysteriously appearing on the list now, snipped]
Sorry about that; God knows what happened there!
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
I'm trying to write an article about suitable voting systems for
referenda (one proposal, which then has amendments suggested, and
the vote is currently conducted using IRV). Recently there have
been some potentially dubious results, and I've been looking into
other methods which might be preferab
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Markus Schulze wrote:
> you wrote (23 Sep 2003):
> > Certainly I've not seen a ballot with clones on it; and
> > I'm fairly sure they get filtered out prior to a ballot
> > being held.
>
> I guess that the reason why there have not yet been clones
> is that IRV is being used a
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Markus Schulze wrote:
> A violation of independence of clones is an even more serious problem when we
> talk about referendums since it is significantly more simple to run a large
> number of clone proposals than to run a large number of clone candidates:
As I said, I *believ
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] Kevin Venzke wrote:
> It seems to me that a cycle participant could benefit, with your methods,
> by running along with a candidate who is there only to be crushed.
There's that problem if we're talking about candidates, yes.
I _think_ if we're talking about mul
I know there are already far too many methods out there, but here's
another (two) that I'm vaguely partial to. I'm sure there are good
reasons why neither of them is any good, but since I can't see them
(and neither can my work colleagues) I thought I'd toss them out to
this list for the eagle-eye
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, Eric Gorr wrote:
> At 12:13 PM +0200 9/21/03, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> >But in most Participation failure examples
> >I've seen, the same candidate is not the winner in both sets. For example,
> >for MCA:
^^^
> What method did you use to determine that:
>
>5:A>B>C
>
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003, [iso-8859-1] Kevin Venzke wrote:
> I don't know whether you're right or not about the relationship between
> Participation and Consistency. But in most Participation failure examples
> I've seen, the same candidate is not the winner in both sets. For example,
> for MCA:
Ah
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>So any method that fails consistency is surely also going to fail
> participation, so it's no great surprise that Condorcet methods fail
> participation.
>
> Where's the error in my logic?<<
>
> No error in your logic. We've known that consistency i
People are likely to note that I will often apologise in advance for my
ideas, as experience shows that, 24-48 hours later, I will suddenly see
why I am mistaken. On occasion I'm not, and that's when I tend to do
decent research. I provide this disclaimer now because otherwise I'll
probably prefa
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Alex Small wrote:
> In your original post yesterday I believe you said you were intereted in
> referenda. In the US, referenda usually refer to yes/no questions on a
> proposed law. Are there multi-option referenda in the UK, or do you mean
> something else?
Cambridge Unive
Thanks to all who have answered on and off list. Any further responses
gratefully received, though!
I'm now rather concerned about violation of the participation criterion,
and would be delighted to hear about ranked methods that don't violate
it. I suspect though that single winner cases are li
[Apologies if this appears more than once; I tried to send it over
12 hours ago and it didn't appear (and isn't in the archive either)
so I'm guessing it didn't get posted; I'm resending because I really
could do with an answer to my questions!]
I'm trying to write an article about suitable voting
28 matches
Mail list logo
