I like IRV-P. I also would like IRV-C, for Condorcet. With the latter,
the "named after a person" part is played down, but still making a reference
to the old name can reduce some confusion, since it has been called Condorcet
for so long.
To most of the world, Condorcet methods are the same t
Steve Eppley alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Rob B asked:
> > Steve Eppley writes:
> > But recounts could still be important, you've just
> > moved the linewhat if it was a difference
> > 0.4% and the election hung on whether it
> > was possibly really 0.5%?
>
> I'm afraid I don't yet un
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:27:50 -0400, James Green-Armytage
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If I lived in a swing state, I would be all for a proportional
> allocation. It's just more fair, less unstable. Who really wants to be in
> the middle of the kind of craziness that they have in Florida the
Steve Eppley alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> James G-A replied to Rob B:
>
> Suppose instead it were winner-takes-all except when
> the vote is really close:
>
> I've exaggerated because of the limitations of the
> text font. When I say "really close" I'm thinking
> about within 1
James Green-Armytage antioch-college.edu> writes:
> Actually getting rid
> of the EC via a federal amendment would be extremely difficult, but
> gradually undermining it on a state-by-state basis is quite feasible.
Not sure why Colorado is doing this, but I doubt many other states will follow
s
Any slashdotters here?
There is a discussion now which can draw some exposure to election issues,
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/09/13/1249231.shtml?tid=4&tid=219
I posted the following, which if it gets any more mod points it might be
selected as one of the 10 questions for libertari
Rob Lanphier robla.net> writes:
> Thanks for the feedback. Before replying, I'm going to point out a
> new, alternate version of the script:
> http://electorama.com/2004/condorcetballot/?rate=scale
I don't like it as much as the original, at least not in its current form.
Interesting nonethele
This is really sweet.
The only minor quibbles are
1) when you sort it, the default is to put highest scoring candidate at the
bottom rather than the top, so you have to click again (or scroll down the
page) to see what you did.
2) Since you can easily specify "ties", the sorting can be a bit m
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> To which I reply "you are entitled to your opinion, but if you cannot prove
> that all orderings of n-1 candidates by a single voter will be consistent
> with the orderings of n candidates by THE SAME voter for ALL voters, then
> your opinion doesn't count."
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> I find it amazing that the list thinks we should ignore voters' preferences
> when defining an election method.
Well, if you are going to respect all their preferences, even if those
preferences are contradictory, why not also have ballots that allow the vot
Jobst Heitzig web.de> writes:
>
> Dear Rob!
>
> you wrote:
> In a ranking, I cannot tie A=C, B=C, A=D, and B=D
> and simultaneously express A>B and C>D.
True, and you shouldn't be able to, because that is (in my opinion) illogical
and contradictory.
But some ranking systems DO allow you to r
James Green-Armytage antioch-college.edu> writes:
> I like this definition of
> "plurality" from Merriam-Webster:
> "an amount or group (as of votes) that is greater than any other amount or
> group within a total but that is not more than half".
But that does not specifically describe an electi
I will give you that your example demonstrates that if your choices alone were
to decide the outcome, a system that only ranks the candidates can be somewhat
insufficient.
However, let's assume that the ranking system in question allows you to,
rather than flipping a coin, simply rank A and B e
To me it makes no sense to have a cyclic individual preference. I at least
can take comfort in knowing that Condorcet considered it non-rational (because
he considered the fact that collective preferences can have this quality to be
a paradox)
>From a pragmatic point of view, I think it is jus
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> Yep. You got it. Kerry's hold on his votes is very tenuous. If he even looks
> like he's asking Nader for "help", he's toast.
That's crazy. I don't doubt that there is *someone* out there that thinks
that illogically, but given that this would instantly giv
Paul Kislanko airmail.net> writes:
> If Kerry were even to ACKNOWLEDGE Nader, Bush would win in a landslide
> because most of the reluctant Kerry voters still blame Nader for "electing"
> Bush.
Lemme try to follow your logic.
Kerry voters are angry at Nader for causing Bush to be elected.
Howe
This is a very good idea, and I will help if I can.
Some time ago, I had the idea to start a site with the goal of convincing
Nader fans that voting for him was a bad idea, but unlike other such sites,
mine would have a technical emphasis and explain why our plurality system is
so broken (and t
e (such as if Kerry is my first choice and Bush my second), I better go ahead
and check some 2nd and 3rd choices and such.
-rob
Rob Brown
http://www.karmatics.com/voting/
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
David GLAUDE gmx.net> writes:
> Releasing into public domain is not really the best choice if at all
> possible...
Why not?
> Who are we to judge on somebody else democracy?
> Let's try to fix our problem first...
I didn't suggest we TRY to fix anyone else's problems, I just said, if other
Dave Ketchum clarityconnect.com> writes:
> Agreed BUT:
>
> If someone writes usable code, AND makes it public, what stops someone
> else copying the code without paying those who did the work?
One thing that would work is that the federal government contracts that the
code be written, pays th
Dave Ketchum clarityconnect.com> writes:
> I propose a ballot looking just like plurality would use to let voters
> mark an "X" for one candidate. Here voters could rank as many of the
> candidates as they chose:
> Either 0-9 or A-Z would be permitted, but not a mixture unless you
> can
James Gilmour globalnet.co.uk> writes:
> If you really believe in democracy as representation of the people I don't
see how you can support
> any form of so called "proxy voting" in which you hand over this critical
decision of choosing YOUR
> representative(s) to a candidate or a party. The su
hand, you say you would
demand it, but on the other hand, you seem to say there is no advantage to it?
> At 10:09 PM +0000 8/31/04, Rob Brown wrote:
> >I'm not sure how you can say that people will demand such an option.
>
> Because I would demand such flexibility. I do not consi
Eric Gorr ericgorr.net> writes:
> If you choose to not pick one from this list, you can do the rankings
> yourself. I can't imagine this would not be important for general
> acceptance. People will want the option even if most do not use it.
Well, one of the main "marketing" benefits of the sys
Eric Gorr ericgorr.net> writes:
> At 8:50 PM + 8/31/04, Rob Brown wrote:
> >Has anyone ever proposed such a thing?
>
> Yes.
What do they call it? Is there any site out there which talks about it?
> With software, providing such a feature would be trivial. Each
>
One of the biggest problems with ranked choice voting (whether it be tabulated
by a condorcet method or IRV or whatever) is that ballots can be rather
complex and it would presumably be expensive to implement as well as to
educate people on how to vote (true, interfaces like this one I did migh
writes:
> I appreciate your perspective, but I'm not quite sure what exactly we
> disagree about. If I remember correctly, we were talking about parties
> per so, not the electorate. Thus, there's at least three issues
> involved, and I'm not sure which one(s) you're commenting on. More
>
MIKE OSSIPOFF hotmail.com> writes:
> There's a website that describes an interesting solution to the
> lesser-of-2-evils problem, a solution that works even with Plurality:
>
> Say you prefer Nader, but you're going to vote Democrat, in the belief that
> that's the only way to keep the Republic
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar radicalcentrism.org> writes:
>However, the root of the split is, at the end of the day, the
> polarized ideologies of conservatism and liberalism that anchor the
> "hard-core" base of each party, and drives politics at the local level.
> As long as both parties carry t
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar radicalcentrism.org> writes:
>However, the root of the split is, at the end of the day, the
> polarized ideologies of conservatism and liberalism that anchor the
> "hard-core" base of each party, and drives politics at the local level.
> As long as both parties carry t
I figured I'd pop out of lurk mode to mention that I, like Diana, have
questioned whether some of the participants of this discussion are computer
rather than human.Craig's mangled vitriol in particular reads like its
been round-tripped through the babelfish translator.
In any case this rid
At 04:14 AM 10/30/2003, you wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear - I have no objection to using Condorcet to select
the winner - I applaud that and really like the voting interface. I am just
struggling with how to make the scalar values meaningful as intermediate
results.
And I am struggling with the sa
At 01:27 PM 10/29/2003, you wrote:
Well, finding a set of scores that reflect the way the election was
decided is
not hard. For example, using beatpath scores of each loser against the
winner
works. The real trick is finding a set of scores that convey information you
actually care about.
Well,
At 01:29 PM 10/29/2003, you wrote:
Agree. They want Borda. You want Condorcet.
Well, maybe. I want to give them something as intuitive as Borda in terms
of showing a nice pretty set of scores that mere mortals can wrap their
heads around, as well as being "correct" in terms of being non-strategi
At 09:00 AM 10/28/2003, Paul Kislanko wrote:
If I were going to display intermediate results in a Condorcet election I
think this is how I would do it. It presents all the information the
voters need to see how their candidate is doing compared to all of the
others. (I usually convert all of the
At 08:48 PM 10/27/2003, Dave Ketchum wrote:
I read these two threads thru 2130 EST on Monday, but choose to respond to
this original.
Looks like a GREAT idea, though a few details disturb me.
You talk of a primary customer, who would give their users some experience
with Condorcet, but as individ
At 01:52 PM 10/28/2003, Rob LeGrand wrote:
Rob Brown wrote:
> Here is a UI I am working on for doing for ranking
> candidates:http://weblogz.com/voting/2000pres.html
It's a good-looking, easy-to-use interface. The only improvement I'd
suggest would be to allow tied ranks
At 11:54 AM 10/27/2003, Rob Speer wrote:
This interface is *very nice*. I applaud you.
Thanks!
(and is it just me, or are there entirely too many Rob's around here? ;) )
However, now that I've seen your interface, I find it amazingly
intuitive, and I'd like to ask your permission to use it in my
At 11:26 AM 10/26/2003, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Not a bad interface, but how do I vote? I got to order my candidates, but
there was no "submit" button
Thanks. I added a submit button (still at
http://weblogz.com/voting/2000pres.html ), but clicking it doesn't do
anything yet. (sorry, I am doin
At 02:28 PM 10/26/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious...are you using margins or winning votes?
Very cool implementation, btw.
Thank you.
Winning votes, but I think margins somehow have to come into the score that
is displayed.
-rob
Election-methods mailing list - see http://ele
At 02:56 PM 10/26/2003, Adam Haas Tarr wrote:
Looks like a promising idea, Rob.
Thanks!
>Here is a UI I am working on for doing for ranking
>candidates:http://weblogz.com/voting/2000pres.html
>This demo is of course based on the 2000 presidential election, and allows
>you to rank candidates wi
At 02:53 PM 10/26/2003, you wrote:
Errr, "Condorcet" doesn't produce a "ranking." It selects one winner. You
have to use something to pick a winner when there is no Condorcet Winner (I
think you said Ranked Pairs), so to make a graph such as you suggest you
could list #1 = Ranked Pairs Winner{over
Hi all,
I have lurked on this list on and off for a few years (the whole Nader
thing in 2000 really got me interested in how thorougly broken plurality
systems are). Now I'm working on a web-based Condorcet based election
system, so I figured I'd drop in and introduce myself, and see if anyone
At 01:00 PM 10/26/2003, Paul Kislanko wrote:
As I said above, not seeing the others' votes is only important in
elections. In the ezboard-type environment (I am a user of ezboards, and for
sure their polls need some help - as they are today they are pointless and
worse than useles) But these ar
44 matches
Mail list logo
