In belgium, we use voting machines, and there are many problems
you didn't think about :
The stealing of code seems to me not to be a problem.
Free software people do it for years, and they can manage it.
Sometimes they attack company who stole their code and it works.
Now about the real prob
compensate multiple votes (It's mostlyaboutPR)
If you search the archives for "Proportional Approval" or "PAV" you may
find something along these lines. There have been several proposals
with same name going back at least to 1998. Also search on "d'Hondt".
counted as votes for the list.
Philippe Errembault
For those interrested I'll give here a bit more information about
the BELGIAN ELECTION SYSTEM :
In belgium, ballot papers contains lists from parties and for each
of them there is one chechbox called "la case de tête" (*) and
one ch
Isn't there really anyone interrested in this topic
?
Or am I just much too confusing in my
explanations ???
I'd like to get feedback on this topic,
please...
It's about normalising the enthropy (amount of
information)
contained in of an "approval like"
vo
(can't find where
they still have the book :-( If someone has it, I'd be glad if he sent it to me.)
> P.S. It's nice to hear from someone in Belgium.
:-)))
Philippe Errembault
- Original Message -
From: "James Green-Armytage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This suggests to me that the election of anyone other than the CW can be
> considered an ERROR on the part of the voters.
Except for PV methods !!!
By the way, Isn't this in contradictions with Arrow's impossibility theorem ?
Philippe Errembault
- Original Message ---
uggest to implement it in parallel with existing
institutions, to keep a
control, make tuning and see what happens.
Philippe Errembault
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> > h... Now that I re-read the text, I realise that your problem
> > about decision
> > taking and collapsing alternatives, probably came from here:
> Actually, it was along the lines of 'forcing linear' decisions, by
> analogy with the way that quantum states evolve smoothly over time
>
I realise that your problem about decision
taking and collapsing alternatives, probably came from here : My proposition was
mostly intended for people representation, mostly at parlementary level.
Executive decisions are not taken at that level... As you said, if we want a
leadership,
we pr
Hello Ernie, (please forget my previous mail/ I forgot to redirect it to the list, and
I forgot to end one paragraph)
> My point is that if you want to rank multi-dimensional information,
> you will have to project your space to a one-dimensional space. This
> will be done using a function that
going up to the
top level, so the minorites problem can be
discussed up to the top, and the way they are protected, depends not from the
"electoral system" but from the top level decision
system. (vote, consensus, etc...)
Philippe
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Ket
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ernest Prabhakar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Philippe Errembault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Arrow's axioms
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
>
> On Mar 5,
Hi Ernest,
I hope we understand each other's. Since English is not my mother tongue, I could pass
over some misunderstanding without realising
it. I will try to be clearer.
My point is that if you want to rank multi-dimensional information, you will have to
project your space to a one-dimen
l of human nature. There are still a few problems with
it, but it would solve many of the problems with the election systems.
(it works a little like a neural structure)
Philippe Errembault
- Original Message -
From:
Ken Johnson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 05,
thoughts. SO
you cannot ask a human democracy to respect constraints that human beings
themselves will not respect.
Philippe Errembault
15 matches
Mail list logo
