Markus Schulze wrote:
>
> Dear Bart,
>
> you wrote (28 Sep 2003):
> > I think when mentioning criteria, it's a good idea to also state why
> > those criteria might be important. For example, to me criteria such as
> > FBC and Participation are important because they relate to a voting
> > syste
Dear Bart,
you wrote (28 Sep 2003):
> I think when mentioning criteria, it's a good idea to also state why
> those criteria might be important. For example, to me criteria such as
> FBC and Participation are important because they relate to a voting
> system's immunity to the Duverger effect.
>
>
I think when mentioning criteria, it's a good idea to also state why
those criteria might be important. For example, to me criteria such as
FBC and Participation are important because they relate to a voting
system's immunity to the Duverger effect.
Approval meets both of these criteria, while t
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Diana Galletly wrote:
^^
[my original article, which disappeared into the ether for nearly a
week before mysteriously appearing on the list now, snipped]
Sorry about that; God knows what happened there!
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em
I'm trying to write an article about suitable voting systems for
referenda (one proposal, which then has amendments suggested, and
the vote is currently conducted using IRV). Recently there have
been some potentially dubious results, and I've been looking into
other methods which might be preferab
Dear Diana,
suppose "d[X,Y]" is the number of voters who strictly prefer
candidate X to candidate Y.
Condorcet:
Suppose that there is a candidate A with d[A,B] > d[B,A]
for every other candidate B. Then "Condorcet" says that
this candidate A must be elected.
Smith:
The "Smith set"
Personally I'm very suspicious of some of the lists of "objective" criteria to assess electoral systems which appear on various websites. Some of them are anything but objective. For example a particularly biased and unobjective list of ' objective criteria' can be found on the ElectionMethods.org
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Alex Small wrote:
> In your original post yesterday I believe you said you were intereted in
> referenda. In the US, referenda usually refer to yes/no questions on a
> proposed law. Are there multi-option referenda in the UK, or do you mean
> something else?
Cambridge Unive
Diana Galletly said:
> There may (fingers crossed) be an opportunity for some analysis with
> data from real elections (see the last two tables on
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly/results.pdf for the
> elections I really want to analyse) -- I've been accused of using
> contrived exampl
Thanks to all who have answered on and off list. Any further responses
gratefully received, though!
I'm now rather concerned about violation of the participation criterion,
and would be delighted to hear about ranked methods that don't violate
it. I suspect though that single winner cases are li
Ms. Galletly,
I find all of thiose criteria a bit extreme but I understand a rigorous
classification is needed. However I can tell you about the method I
prefer:
Tideman's Ranked Pairs.
5). ... I've read that Tideman's Ranked Pairs fails SDSC and
WDSC, but the other two completion methods meet
[Apologies if this appears more than once; I tried to send it over
12 hours ago and it didn't appear (and isn't in the archive either)
so I'm guessing it didn't get posted; I'm resending because I really
could do with an answer to my questions!]
I'm trying to write an article about suitable voting
12 matches
Mail list logo
