At 03:38 PM 6/10/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
Abd,
You wrote:
Now, I wonder if there is anyone on this list who thinks that overvotes
should not be counted?
Let me first make it clear that I agree that FPP is awful and that
Approval would be a huge improvement. However, simply counting all
ove
Abd,
You wrote:
Now, I wonder if there is anyone on this list who thinks that
overvotes should not be counted?
Let me first make it clear that I agree that FPP is awful and that
Approval would be a huge improvement. However, simply counting all
overvotes at full value is an attempt to sneak
Another thought occurred to me. With either Approval or ranking, it
is easy enough to "un-vote" for a candidate by simply drawing a line
through all of the candidate's fill-in spots.
A machine reader can be set to count multiple ranks or excessive
ink as lowest rank or non-approved.
This preve
At 12:50 AM 6/9/2005, Russ Paielli wrote:
Abd ulRahman Lomax abd-at-lomaxdesign.com |EMlist| wrote:
So promoting Approval voting might be as simple as pointing out the
injustice of [discarding overvoted ballots]. I can't see any reason for
*preventing* a person from voting for more than one ca
Dear Russ!
You wrote:
> You make an excellent point. Rather than defending Approval, Approval
> advocates should go on the offensive and let the opponents explain why
> the voter *shouldn't* be allowed to approve more than one candidate.
>
> Having said that, let me play devil's advocate and give
Abd ulRahman Lomax abd-at-lomaxdesign.com |EMlist| wrote:
At 01:25 PM 6/7/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 at 21:20 UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
> What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
ERIRV(whole):
Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting, whole [vote
At 02:34 PM 6/8/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
Let me summarize two sides of the main argument.
On one side, we have those who say,
Let everyone have their say, even if they choose more than one
candidate. Every voice should be heard.
[with mumbled grumblings about overly stringent
On 7 Jun 2005 at 21:01 UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:25 PM 6/7/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote: >On 6 Jun 2005 at 21:20
UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
>> > What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
>>
>>ERIRV(whole):
>>
>>Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting,
Ted,
In response to Abdul asking:
What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
You wrote:
ERIRV(whole):
Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting, whole [votes counted for
equal rank].
In other words, each round of the runoff becomes an approval election
rather than a single-v
At 02:09 AM 6/8/2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
[I had written:]
> So promoting Approval voting might be as simple as pointing out the
> injustice of it. I can't see any reason for *preventing* a person from
> voting for more than one candidate. Allowing it merely adds to the
> freedom of the voter wi
Dear Abd ulRahman!
you wrote:
> I can see only one argument for the practice of discarding
> multiply-marked ballots, and it is singularly weak. A corrupt election
> worker could weaken votes by adding extra marks. But this is truly weak
> because in the event that this occurred, it would be close
At 01:25 PM 6/7/2005, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
On 6 Jun 2005 at 21:20 UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
> What if we had IRV with Approval? What is that called?
ERIRV(whole):
Equal-Rank [allowed], Instant Runoff Voting, whole [votes counted for
equal rank].
In other words, each round of th
On 6 Jun 2005 at 21:20 UTC-0700, Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
> Approval Voting amounts to nothing more than striking out the rule that
> spoils multiply-marked ballots. As has often been noted, it doesn't require
> any voting machine changes (except if machines automatically reject
> multiply-mark
13 matches
Mail list logo
