On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Bart Ingles wrote:
I started out on this list in 1998 as an IRV supporter, but now see it
as a step in the wrong direction. Back then I believed IRV had
properties I considered important (e.g. resistance to low-
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Bart Ingles wrote:
I started out on this list in 1998 as an IRV supporter, but now see it as a
step in the wrong direction. Back then I believed IRV had properties I
considered important (e.g. resistance to low-utility winners in worst-case
scenarios), but have long since le
Bill Clark wrote:
There are people who legitimately prefer the features of IRV, however.
The folks at fairvote.org seem to fall into this category, and I
really don't think it's a matter of ignorance, just different
preferences.
That may be true for CVD core members, but unfortunately most of thei
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:36:01 -0700, Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's interesting to see how interest in IRV seems to naturally lead to
> interest in Condorcet
I think it depends on why people got interested in IRV in the first
place. For people (like me) who are interested in elimi
It was surprising to see how many slashdot posters panned IRV, and were
otherwise savvy about Condorcet and approval voting.
Bart
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Our favorite topic is currently the topic of discussion over at Slashdot:
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/01/2139227&tid=226
"An Analysis of Various Election Methods"
Posted by michael on Saturday October 02, @02:08AM
from the anything-would-be-a-step-forward dept.
An anonymous re
