On 16 Mar 2005 at 17:32 PST, Forest Simmons wrote:
> Russ worried that putting in an approval cutoff might be too costly.
>
> The cost is the same as adding one extra candidate, the ACC
> (Approval Cutoff Candidate).
>
> Voters that truncate the ACC candidate are implicitly approving all
> of their
On 15 Mar 2005 at 21:49 PST, Russ Paielli wrote:
Note
that the simple idea of ranking candidates will stress the limits of
public acceptability all by itself.
I am not certain this is true.
I have watched and continue to track various efforts to get IRV
implemented in various locations around the
On 15 Mar 2005 at 21:49 PST, Russ Paielli wrote:
> I'm just trying strike a balance between simplicity and
> effectiveness. I am starting to realize that equal rankings may be
> worthwhile. As for allowing ranking past the Approval cutoff point,
> I am still not sold on that, but I am open minded.
Ted Stern tedstern-at-mailinator.com |EMlist| wrote:
On 15 Mar 2005 at 08:34 PST, Ted Stern wrote:
On 14 Mar 2005 at 22:02 PST, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Forest, Russ, and Ted!
I suggest that we call the method we discussed under various names
in the last days ARC (Approval Runoff Condorcet) and co
Ted Stern tedstern-at-mailinator.com |EMlist| wrote:
On 14 Mar 2005 at 22:02 PST, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Forest, Russ, and Ted!
I suggest that we call the method we discussed under various names
in the last days ARC (Approval Runoff Condorcet) and continue to
study its properties, especially it
On 15 Mar 2005 at 08:34 PST, Ted Stern wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2005 at 22:02 PST, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
>> Dear Forest, Russ, and Ted!
>>
>> I suggest that we call the method we discussed under various names
>> in the last days ARC (Approval Runoff Condorcet) and continue to
>> study its properties, espec
On 14 Mar 2005 at 22:02 PST, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
> Dear Forest, Russ, and Ted!
>
> I suggest that we call the method we discussed under various names
> in the last days ARC (Approval Runoff Condorcet) and continue to
> study its properties, especially its anti-strategy properties.
>
> I agree wit
Dear Forest, Russ, and Ted!
I suggest that we call the method we discussed under various names in
the last days ARC (Approval Runoff Condorcet) and continue to study its
properties, especially its anti-strategy properties.
I agree with Russ that it is perhaps a very nice first public proposal,
es
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Ted Stern wrote:
Furthermore, the set P of all candidates none of which is beaten by any
candidate with greater approval turns out to be the set of candidates that
are as high or higher than the approval winner in the sorted order.
Seems nice, but why is this a nice property t
On 14 Mar 2005 at 13:14 PST, Forest Simmons wrote:
> Here's the original recursive procedure that I gave for Approval Seeded
> Bubble Sort:
>
> 1. List the candidates in order of approval, from top to bottom.
>
> 2. Percolate the bottom candidate as far as possible up the recursively
> sorted lis
Here's the original recursive procedure that I gave for Approval Seeded
Bubble Sort:
1. List the candidates in order of approval, from top to bottom.
2. Percolate the bottom candidate as far as possible up the recursively
sorted list of the other candidates.
How's that for concise?
Jobst is rig
11 matches
Mail list logo
