[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Paul Kislanko wrote:
The original question was how to define the word "spoiler", and I've
come to
the conclusion that it cannot be used at all without some
qualification. An
"IRV-spoiler" might be a clone or it might be an IA, and it can be one
withou
Still not into alphabet soup, seems to me what I wrote here deserves more
response as to Nader. The 35 Nader backers:
Are strong enough to dream of winning - therefore voting Nader
first, just in case.
Hate Bush - therefore voting him last.
Like what Condorcet does - agreeing with
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Paul Kislanko wrote:
The original question was how to define the word "spoiler", and I've come to
the conclusion that it cannot be used at all without some qualification. An
"IRV-spoiler" might be a clone or it might be an IA, and it can be one
without being both.
A "spoiler" i
ROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 5:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Irrelevant Vs. Clone (was RE: [EM] IRV in San Francisco)
>
> In a method that mistreats clones, a clone is an "irrelevant
> alternative".
> Dropping a non-winning clone, allowing t
In a method that mistreats clones, a clone is an "irrelevant alternative".
Dropping a non-winning clone, allowing the other non-winning clone to win,
violates the desired independence of irrelevant alternatives.
Thus, everything that violates the clone criterion, violates independence
of irrele
Eric Gorr asked a lot of questions
>
> So, you now believe there is such a thing as an IIA spoiler?
I never said I didn't. I just said I couldn't get that there was from your
definition:
"With IIA, the spoiler is a candidate that is either added or removed
from the ballots.
With ICC, the spo
At 4:03 PM -0600 11/16/04, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Eric Gorr replied to my questions:
At 3:14 PM -0600 11/16/04, Paul Kislanko wrote:
>No one can be added or removed
>from a ballot after the votes have been counted,
Sure one can...just do it and recalculate.
>so by this distinction
>there is no
Eric Gorr replied to my questions:
>
> At 3:14 PM -0600 11/16/04, Paul Kislanko wrote:
> >No one can be added or removed
> >from a ballot after the votes have been counted,
>
> Sure one can...just do it and recalculate.
>
> >so by this distinction
> >there is no such thing as an IIA spoiler.
>
At 3:14 PM -0600 11/16/04, Paul Kislanko wrote:
No one can be added or removed
from a ballot after the votes have been counted,
Sure one can...just do it and recalculate.
so by this distinction
there is no such thing as an IIA spoiler.
I believe there is.
Compute the winner.
Start removing candidat
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ] On Behalf Of Eric Gorr
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 3:01 PM
> To: EM List
> Subject: Re: [EM] IRV in San Francisco
>
> At 8:03 PM -0800 11/15/04, Bart Ingles wrote:
> >What would be an example of a spoiler (ICC or other violation) which
>
At 8:03 PM -0800 11/15/04, Bart Ingles wrote:
What would be an example of a spoiler (ICC or other violation) which
is NOT an irrelevant alternative?
With IIA, the spoiler is a candidate that is either added or removed
from the ballots.
With ICC, the spoiler is among the ballots already.
Ele
Eric Gorr wrote:
At 8:16 PM -0800 11/14/04, Bart Ingles wrote:
Eric Gorr wrote:
At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones
Criterion and
thereby be subject to a spoiler effect again.
Doesn'
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> The only tie-breaker that I can think of in common usage (it gets
> written in to proposed laws) which would cause the implementation of IRV
> to fail ICC would be what I have called "deterministic"...where all
> candidates tied for least votes are eliminate
At 8:16 PM -0800 11/14/04, Bart Ingles wrote:
Eric Gorr wrote:
At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones Criterion and
thereby be subject to a spoiler effect again.
Doesn't IRV suffer from s
Eric Gorr wrote:
At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones
Criterion and
thereby be subject to a spoiler effect again.
Doesn't IRV suffer from spoiler effects anyway?
Depends.
The method
At 1:47 PM -0500 11/12/04, Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:06:23 -0500 Eric Gorr wrote:
At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones Criterion and
thereby be subject to a spoiler effe
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:06:23 -0500 Eric Gorr wrote:
At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones
Criterion and
thereby be subject to a spoiler effect again.
Doesn't IRV suffer from spoiler ef
At 7:44 AM -0800 11/12/04, Justin Sampson wrote:
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones Criterion and
thereby be subject to a spoiler effect again.
Doesn't IRV suffer from spoiler effects anyway?
Depends.
The method itself passes the ICC
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:12:36 -0800 (PST) Justin Sampson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Brian Olson wrote:
Between this story and all of the snafu going on with the DRE voting
machines, my appraisal of the quality of software engineering in this
country is going down. Even Microsoft could do better.
A
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Eric Gorr wrote:
> At 10:11 AM -0500 11/12/04, Warren Schudy wrote:
>
> > 1) Did the ballot only allow each voter to give the top three choices?
> > I suspect that restriction would significantly decrease the
> > effectiveness of IRV.
Yes, three choices. The City Charter sa
At 10:11 AM -0500 11/12/04, Warren Schudy wrote:
1) Did the ballot only allow each voter to give the top three choices? I
suspect that restriction would significantly decrease the effectiveness of
IRV.
Well, it will cause IRV to fail the Independence of Clones Criterion
and thereby be subject to a
1) Did the ballot only allow each voter to give the top three choices? I
suspect that restriction would significantly decrease the effectiveness of
IRV.
2) I suspect the root cause of the crappy election software used is
gullible non-technical election clerks making purchasing decisions. As a
s
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Brian Olson wrote:
> Between this story and all of the snafu going on with the DRE voting
> machines, my appraisal of the quality of software engineering in this
> country is going down. Even Microsoft could do better.
As a software engineer I'm certainly apalled but not real
Brian Olson wrote:
Between this story and all of the snafu going on with the DRE voting
machines, my appraisal of the quality of software engineering in this
country is going down. Even Microsoft could do better.
Maybe they outsourced it.
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electora
On Nov 10, 2004, at 9:54 PM, Toplak Jurij wrote:
the computer program written to tabulate votes choked on the
unanticipated large number of ballots.
That makes me sad. I wrote software that can easily count 1,000,000 IRV
votes.
According to
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chron
I am forwarding this from the Ed Still's
newsletter:
San Francisco -- complete results from Instant Runoff
VotingThe San Francisco Chronicle reportsL The new voting
system, also known as instant runoff voting, was adopted by voters in 2002 and
put into use for the first time in Tuesd
26 matches
Mail list logo