On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 8/30/03 6:47:16 PM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
> > Here in the U.S. 99.9 percent of the voters would rather have their
> > favorite candidate worry about ranking, rating, or approving the other
> > candidate
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Alex Small wrote:
> Dave Ketchum said:
> > If I really wanted to broaden the field, I might get into ways for the
> > people being represented to control who got to be officials, and
> > when officials got replaced, WITHOUT doing elections.
>
> Here's a simple scheme along thos
Dave Ketchum said:
> If I really wanted to broaden the field, I might get into ways for the
> people being represented to control who got to be officials, and
> when officials got replaced, WITHOUT doing elections.
Here's a simple scheme along those lines. Surely it can be improved, and
as set fo
As I said last time, I approve of EM getting into other topics but, for
myself (and I assume many others), public elections are the big deal.
Certainly other topics could include non humans, etc.
If I really wanted to broaden the field, I might get into ways for the
people being represented to
ne exists" - NOT
> sufficient - for public election we should be unwilling to settle for less
> than picking a winner (unless we have a true tie, or choose to call as a
> tie something close to that).
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote, per
>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 01:52:46 -0400
From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EM] Cheering for simplicity
(snip)
Public elections:
Executive - for a single winner. These will continue to exist,
but we need to get past Plurality, which most of us recognize
-winner if one exists" - NOT
sufficient - for public election we should be unwilling to settle for less
than picking a winner (unless we have a true tie, or choose to call as a
tie something close to that).
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Forest Simmons wrote, per
subject: Re: [EM] Che
Furthermore, what we call "election methods" have many applications beyond
public elections. We call the alternatives "candidates" because that is a
colorful case that interests a lot of people.
Forest
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Alex Small wrote:
> John B. Hodges said:
> > Some time back I asked why t
The simplest method to understand and implement works for both single
winner elections and proportional representation: Candidate Proxy.
Each voter votes for one candidate as in plurality. The candidates
represent (as proxies) the voters that voted for them in an election
completion convention tha
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 07:10:47PM -0400, John B. Hodges wrote:
> Some further comments. Most Condorcet-methods are "brute force"
> computationally. The first thing they do is do all possible pairwise
> comparisons. The multiseat method CPO-STV is likewise a "brute force"
> method; for an N-seat
ss is that the ideal ensemble
will never include a Condorcet loser and will always include a
Condorcet-winner if one exists. STV with Rob's "orphan" elimination
rule would (I guess) be sufficient to do that much.
From: Markus Schulze
Subject: Re:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:41:39PM -0500, Adam Haas Tarr wrote:
> 2) Since it is a Condorcet-compliant method, it shares all the weaknesses that
> all Condorcet methods have in the eyes of the IRV advocates (i.e. the weak
> center winner). I don't think an IRV supporter would see this as a compr
This method isn't really that bad, but:
1) I don't think any serious Condorcet advocates think this is a better way to
resolve circular ties than ranked pairs or beatpath.
2) Since it is a Condorcet-compliant method, it shares all the weaknesses that
all Condorcet methods have in the eyes of th
James G-A wrote in part:
"True, but if we can get some really good and accessible shareware voting
programs out to people, methods that require computers will not be
impossibly hard for people to use."
Some very (in my opinion) user friendly STV counting software is freely available from the Elec
I suggest that when there are N seats then at each
stage a plain vanilla STV count should be hold between
the N+1 candidates with the lowest numbers of first
preferences and the loser of this count should be
eliminated.
Markus Schulze
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/
John B. Hodges said:
> Some time back I asked why the folks here worked so hard to find
> other methods of Proportional Representation when we had Party List and
> STV, which seemed to cover all the necessary bases. People
> responded with their complaints about both methods.
Well, many of us are
James Green-Armytage, responding to John Hodges
>SO: I am wondering what effects you would get if you applied the
>orphan method's elimination rule to multiseat STV? How would the
>results compare with "Sequential STV" or "CPO-STV", both of which are
>complex and computer-dependent? If the orp
From: "James Green-Armytage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EM] orphaned voting method
(snip) It works like this:
1. Ranked Ballots.
2. Count top choice vote totals.
3. Hold a pairwise comparison between the two candidates with the lowest
top choice vote total.
4. Eliminate the loser of this pairwi
18 matches
Mail list logo
