So, who turned the Dartmouth Board of Trustees on to the idea of using
Approval Voting? Whoever it was, thank you! - Jan
http://www.dartmouth.edu/%7Enews/releases/2007/05/17d.html
Dartmouth Board of Trustees elects Stephen F. Smith
Dartmouth College Office of Public Affairs • Press Release
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/natapoff.html
This is one of the WORST ideas I've seen in a long time!
In Florida 2000, about
3 million voted for Bush
3 million voted for Gore
97000 voted for Nader
Under our current system, the voters who preferred Bush and the voters
who preferred Gore had
On 4/3/07, Chris Benham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW I think your plan of re-electing 2 out of the 5 in a years time
isn't very proportional. Say faction A is supported by a bare
majority in both elections. After the first election A will rightly have
3 of the 5 seats, but after the second A
On 2/24/07, Michael Ossipoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Kok wrote:
The statistical evidence at http://rangevoting.org/TTRvIRVstats.html
seems pretty good that IRV leads to two party domination in IRV
elections, while (delayed) top two runoff tends to lead to a strong
multiparty system
The statistical evidence at http://rangevoting.org/TTRvIRVstats.html
seems pretty good that IRV leads to two party domination in IRV
elections, while (delayed) top two runoff tends to lead to a strong
multiparty system.
Why do those two methods, which seem strategically quite similar, lead
to
On 1/21/07, Michael Ossipoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to vote? Range-Voting is ok for public elections, but it's no good here,
because strategizers will take advantage of sincere voters. The purpose,
here, of RV would be to aggregate sincere ratings. But we won't be getting
sincere
a Google account,
click on Sign up now)
After you have joined, you will be able to participate in the discussions.
Cheers,
- Jan Kok
P.S. A draft of the bill has already been submitted to Legislative
Legal Services. The submitted draft can be viewed by anyone at:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid
a Google account,
click on Sign up now)
After you have joined, you will be able to participate in the discussions.
Cheers,
- Jan Kok
P.S. A draft of the bill has already been submitted to Legislative
Legal Services. The submitted draft can be viewed by anyone at:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid
On 11/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/22/06 12:11:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In meetings, voting on multiple-answer questions is rare.
Yes, but why? Because very, very few people -- probably
less than 1% of U.S. citizens,
On 10/1/06, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:49 PM 10/1/2006, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
I'm talking about marking the ballot by filling in bubbles, not
by scribbling on it. There may be enough down-ballot contests in
many elections (at least in the U. S.) that the vote-buyer could
The people at zohopolls.com have a very nice web based Range Voting
polling system. For example, try out the 2008 US Presidential poll at
http://zohopolls.com/brokenladder/2008-u-s-presidential-election-poll-using
The zoho people have expressed great interest in working with us to
improve it
Please help promote better voting methods, and Range Voting in
particular, by pointing people to this 2008 US Presidential Range
Voting poll:
http://zohopolls.com/brokenladder/2008-u-s-presidential-election-poll-using#comment-2395
Also help digg it!
I think free choice might be a little better than people's choice
as a term to describe how the proxy structure is created in Abd
Lomax's DP method. The proxy-client relationship is created by mutual
agreement of the proxy and the client.
As a political activist, I wish I had some special power
Boston Tea Party http://bostontea.us is a new political party,
splintered off the Libertarian Party. They are looking for a news
group on which to conduct their discussions. Yahoo groups are not bad
- they provide Plurality and Approval polls. But, I'm wondering if
there is some similar news
selling RCV, we can point
out that Condorcet is another kind of RCV. Maybe CVD will bite. I
really hope so.
Jan Kok proposes Range Voting (RV), claiming it is fully compatible with
all existing voting machines. I have to question this claim since RV,
See http://rangevoting.org/VotMach.html
like RC
On 7/24/06, Monkey Puzzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anybody say Straw Man?
I don't understand what you're trying to say, M.P.
No one (on this list) is claiming this North Carolina thing is real
IRV. The NC thing is an abomination.
Regular IRV in Florida 2000 would have given us Gore, the
A couple weeks ago Forest Simmons suggested the candidate withdrawal
option as a way of improving most election methods. I just realized
that the candidate withdrawal option would greatly mitigate the center
squeeze problem with IRV. (Sometimes it takes a while for other
people's ideas to sink
On 6/22/06, Simmons, Forest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we unite with IRV supporters to enact ranked ballots, on the condition
that the back end will be decided later, then we can get ranked ballots
enacted, and the back end decided in a less charged atmosphere. Many IRV
supporters, will
I believe that (on the political front) we should temporarily not worry about
which ranked ballot method we are pushing for, and focus on promoting (as an
election method framework) the ranked ballot with the candidate withdrawal
and selection from published rankings options.
Forest, have
On 6/13/06, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 23:36:45 -0500 Dan Bishop wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Permitting equal ranking for multiple candidates. Desirable for
pleasing those who call Approval desirable; doable with Condorcet, though
there can be
I encourage people who want to know the details of what is going on
with Denver's election reform to subscribe to the irv-l list via
irvdenver.org . The traffic is about 2 or 3 posts per day.
The message attached below is Rob's reply to a nice post by Mahendra
Prasad, included below. (Thanks,
Denver city councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie is leading an effort to
get rid of their Plurality + delayed runoff election method, used for
electing city council members and a few other city officers, and
replacing it with IRV. 10 days ago I attended a meeting of that
group. There were about 12
On 6/11/06, warren_d_smith31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another important piece of info we need Jan to provide:
What reasons do they have (both stated and unstated)
for wanting IRV and for believing the current plur+delayed runoff system is
inadequate?
Why do they believe IRV is the cat's
On 6/11/06, warren_d_smith31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Promoters of the many different voting systems need to stand back from all
the
competing technicalities for one moment
and ask the question: What is the purpose of this election? In the case
of Denver it
appears to be to elect a
On 6/7/06, Anthony O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(PS, does anyone know what the BTR part of BTR-IRV means? Honestly, I can't
figure it out, but that's what Warren on Rangevoting.com calls it. I'm
thinking of changing the name to Majority Elimination by IRV, or ME-IRV, and
ME-STV, but if
Thanks for alerting us to this interesting election, Rob.
I confirm that Flores is rather convincingly the Condorcet Winner,
according to the pre-election polls, and yet lost in the actual
Plurality with top-two runoff election.
Would Flores have lost in an IRV election? This is harder to say
On 4/23/06, Doreen Dotan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm resubmitting this, as the day that I sent it out I kept getting a page
that says that I can't access my account temporarily. Since this query was
not answered, I have reason to believe it was not received.
I'm not sure when your
On 4/23/06, Steve Eppley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some people don't consider the Electoral College winner-take-all within most
states
to be messed up. Here are 2 reasons to prefer winner-take-all:
1. If states allocate their Electoral College delegates proportionally, then
every state
On 4/23/06, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Jan Kok Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:33 AM
MMP = mixed member proportional? Which I believe is used in
New Zealand also.
Yes, MMP = Mixed Member Proportional (voting system), which we in the UK call
AMS = Additional Member
-- Forwarded message --From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mar 12, 2006 12:24 PMSubject: Re: [electionwatch2006] Greenspan Predicts 2008 (Perot Type) Independent Pres...To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 3/12/2006 2:20:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Jim
You
On 3/12/06, Jonathan Lundell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:57 AM -0700 3/11/06, Jan Kok wrote:
I crunched the election data and found that Kiss was preferred to
Miller, 4755 to 3988.
Drat. :-)
That's still not numerically consistent with the published Burlington
results; I wonder what
Holy sacred cow, Batman!!
According to Brian's analysis, Miller was the Condorcet winner, but
Kiss won the actual IRV election. Miller was preferred over Kiss 3991
to 3455.
Brian, the number of first-choice votes according to your histograms
doesn't exactly match the numbers on the Burlington
Thanks for doing this analysis! This is BIG news in the small world
of voting methods! :-)
How so? It's well known that IRV/AV/STV doesn't necessarily find the
Condorcet winner. It shouldn't be too surprising that there are
real-world examples.
--
/Jonathan Lundell.
Yes, Jonathan, of
Selecting bottom-tier proxies by secret ballot sure seems like a messy
problem. Depending on the problem definition (the requirements), I'm
not confident that there is a solution.
For those that want to try to find a solution, I offer the following
paper as inspiration:
www.votegrity.com
Below are some ads for visualization tools, which is close to what
Jiri originally asked about.
As you can see, I use gmail, a free email service run by Google.
Google makes money by delivering ads to the user (me) in their web
mail interface. The ads are out to the side of the mail, not
Rob,
Overall, I like the previous, short version and the current version
about equally. The short version spent a larger fraction of the text
talking about the problems with Plurality voting. The problems with
Plurality are the common ground that pretty much all voting reformers
(IRVists,
In Rob Brown's Movie Night introduction to election methods, Rob
suggests that allowing people to watch the current vote results and
change their votes as often as they like would lead to a stable
situation where no one would feel a need to change their vote. (I
believe that situation is called a
On 11/30/05, rob brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/30/05, James Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rob brown Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:17 PM
From a purely utilitarian point of view (i.e. greatest
happiness), it makes a lot of sense to give more weight to
the opinions of
Someone here might consider this an opportunity...
- Jan
-- Forwarded message --
From: IRV Alliance [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Nov 14, 2005 5:33 AM
Subject: [InstantRunoffCO] Dec IRV event in Aspen?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can anyone speak at an IRV presentation in early December
yahoogroups.com/group/condorcet
- Jan
On 10/8/05, MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've unsuccessfully searched the web for that mailing list, and a way to
write to it or join it (in order to write to it). How can that be
accomplished?
Mike Ossipoff
Election-methods mailing list
On 9/18/05, Abd ulRahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:36 PM 9/17/2005, Rob Lanphier wrote:
...
My understanding is that FBC is mutually exclusive of the Condorcet
winner criteria. As I've stated above, when Condorcet winner is
violated, there's a good chance that one person, one vote
active and promote Range Voting for use in
public elections, please visit the CRV web site and join the
associated newsgroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rangevoting.
Cheers,
- Jan Kok
= Endorsement of Range Voting from Mike Ossipoff =
I was a participant in the election-methods
On 8/19/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just for clarification, the Executive director of the Center for
Voting and Democracy is Rob Richie, not Scott Ritchie. Note
that the last names are spelled differently. For CVD contact
information and names other other staff people, visit
On 8/19/05, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:05 PM 8/18/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
I do not especially recommend running range elections in this style.
I would much prefer it if there were voting machines specifically designed
for range voting. However, because range voting
I strongly urge everyone to get into the habit of calling Condorcet methods
Instand Round Robin (IRR) methods. The Instant Round Robin name is far more
descriptive than Condorcet. I think the concept of a round robin
tournament is widely understood, even among people who are not sports fans.
The
as a series of referendum questions, with the
advocates' names associated with the questions. For example, Do you agree
with Jan Kok that Plurality Voting should be replaced with Approval Voting
for all public elections in the US that are intended to select a single
winner from multiple candidates
In the discussion about voting methods at
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/2139227tid=226
Orzetto raises a point that I haven't seen mentioned before, that ranked
ballot methods are more susceptible to vote selling and coersion than
simpler methods such as Plurality or
I also like descriptive naming.
Ditto.
Jameson Quinn has suggested the names Instant Round Robin Voting (IRRV)
and Instant Pairwise Runoff Voting (IPRV) as alternative names for
Condorcet methods.
I like having round robin in the name because I think it is a familiar
concept to most people.
I suggest this alternative description of Approval Voting:
Voters are asked to approve or disapprove each candidate. Voters
may approve more than one candidate for an office. Whoever gets the
most approval votes wins.
The reasons for proposing this are:
1. I have twice received this
James Gilmour wrote:
49 ACB
48 BCA
3 CBA
[and expressed doubts about whether the public would accept a voting system
that chose C as the winner]
What I see here is a highly polarized electorate. The A-first voters place
B last, and vice versa. Both A-first and B-first voters consider C to
Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi all,
I've been sitting on this for a while, but I'm thinking I'll post it now:
Here are some results from the simulation I recently wrote about:
(Description of it:)
1. It generates randomly-sized factions, and their sincere utilities for
every candidate.
It sounds
Gervase,
I commend you for getting involved in choosing a voting method for
forming a committee. This is an opportunity to educate other people,
and especially some of the leaders in your organization, about voting
methods.
I can offer a bit of advice from my own experience: find out who will
Mike Ossipoff wrote (many things, including):
True, Approval doesn't let you vote all your preferences, but at least
it
reliably counts all those that you vote. That can't be said for IRV.
What do we mean by counts?
One meaning is used in arguments about why people should vote. Your
vote
Eric Gorr wrote:
At 10:35 AM -0700 1/23/04, Jan Kok wrote:
Mike Ossipoff wrote (many things, including):
True, Approval doesn't let you vote all your preferences, but
at least it reliably counts all those that you vote. That can't
be said for IRV.
What do we mean by counts?
The election
The voting methods proposed below give very high probabilities to all
voters that Your vote counts! - as compared with most other methods
discussed on this list.
This post is really a reductio ad absurdum argument showing that
improving the chances that voters' votes count (change the outcome of
There is a class of voting methods commonly used by young American
school children, and probably by children all over the world. These
methods (EMMM, 1P2P...) guarantee that every voter's vote counts (as
does my YVC0 method that I proposed in a previous post), but furthermore
gives every voter
I like http://australianpolitics.com/ . It has several fairly detailed pages
of info about how Australian elections work, about the political parties
and so on. There is also some info about British and American politics and
elections.
I don't know of any worldwide summary info, but you
57 matches
Mail list logo
