I think we're all in agreement that this is a purely academic issue, and
cyclic individual rankings are a bad idea in practice, but anyway...
At 05:57 PM 8/19/2003 -0700, Forest Simmons wrote:
On the first issue you like A's stance, B is in the middle, and you detest
C's stance.
On the second is
Dave Ketchum said:
> Perhaps some are losing sight of the goal, which is to decide which
> candidate shall get elected.
>
> In preparing to vote we can think of all the issues. But then we need
> to sort out which candidate(s) seem to best fit our desires, putting
> weight on the various issues
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:31:21 -0400 Eric Gorr wrote:
At 4:07 PM -0700 8/19/03, Forest Simmons wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Adam Tarr wrote:
Well, I don't think that's what Donald wants. Moreover, it seems
absurd to
give an individual voter the ability to submit an ambiguous ballot.
Cyclic
t
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003, Adam Tarr wrote:
> Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> >Suppose that the (only, as far as you are concerned) issues, i1, i2, and
> >i3, are equally important to you, and that (in your opinion) candidate A
> >beats candidate B on two out of three, candidate B beats candidate C on
> >two
On economics, I prefer A>B>C (techie>moderate>farm subsidy). On social
and civil liberties I prefer B>C>A (ACLU>moderate>Patriot Act). On
foreign policy I prefer C>A>B (non-intervention>moderation>hawk). You can
agree or disagree with my stances, but it's rational for me to order the
candidates
At 4:07 PM -0700 8/19/03, Forest Simmons wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Adam Tarr wrote:
Well, I don't think that's what Donald wants. Moreover, it seems absurd to
give an individual voter the ability to submit an ambiguous ballot. Cyclic
ties can make sense for an electorate, but they can't mak
Adam Tarr said:
>>Why would you be insane to say that you prefer A to B to C to A?
>
> Well, if that were the case, then your preferences in candidates would
> make sense, but your stances on the issues appear to be schizophrenic.
> All you've done here is abstracted the argument from candidates
Forest Simmons wrote:
Suppose that the (only, as far as you are concerned) issues, i1, i2, and
i3, are equally important to you, and that (in your opinion) candidate A
beats candidate B on two out of three, candidate B beats candidate C on
two out of three, and candidate C beats candidate A on two
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Adam Tarr wrote:
>
> Well, I don't think that's what Donald wants. Moreover, it seems absurd to
> give an individual voter the ability to submit an ambiguous ballot. Cyclic
> ties can make sense for an electorate, but they can't make sense for a sane
> individual.
Suppose
I am playing catchup, raher than resoponding especially to Alex.
I am seeing statements in this thread that are NOT what I expected!
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:34:46 -0700 (PDT) Alex Small wrote:
Adam Tarr said:
Well, since Condorcet is (to the best of my knowledge) never used in
public elections a
Adam Tarr said:
>
>>Well, since Condorcet is (to the best of my knowledge) never used in
>> public elections and rarely used in private groups, I don't know
>> whether the 0.5 votes each is a standard convention or not. It
>> wouldn't change the margins, so it would be applicable to margins
>> met
At 1:43 PM -0500 8/17/03, Adam Tarr wrote:
Well, since Condorcet is (to the best of my knowledge) never used in
public elections and rarely used in private groups, I don't know whether
the 0.5 votes each is a standard convention or not. It wouldn't change
the margins, so it would be applicable to
Dear Rob,
you wrote (17 Aug 2003):
> I've encountered people who have heard of Condorcet but are scared off
> because they think the voter has to vote explicitly in each pairwise
> contest. Is this just misinterpretation, or deliberate FUD by IRV
> supporters?
>From time to time, there are scient
Well, since Condorcet is (to the best of my knowledge) never used in
public elections and rarely used in private groups, I don't know whether
the 0.5 votes each is a standard convention or not. It wouldn't change
the margins, so it would be applicable to margins methods. Certainly it
would be ne
Rob Speer wrote:
Alex Small wrote:
> Dave Ketchum said:
> > 9045? I see counts for A>B and B>A as separate tallies.
>
> Good point. I forgot about equal rankings necessitating such separate
> tallies.
This part confuses me. I assume this is the same as counting an equal
ranking as "half a vote f
Rob Speer said:
> This part confuses me. I assume this is the same as counting an equal
> ranking as "half a vote for each", which has come up a lot, when I
> always thought of an equal ranking as simply not changing anything
> between the two candidates.
>
> Since most Condorcet methods I'm famili
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 12:11:42AM -0700, Alex Small wrote:
> Dave Ketchum said:
> > 9045? I see counts for A>B and B>A as separate tallies.
>
> Good point. I forgot about equal rankings necessitating such separate
> tallies.
This part confuses me. I assume this is the same as counting an equal
Dave Ketchum said:
> 9045? I see counts for A>B and B>A as separate tallies.
Good point. I forgot about equal rankings necessitating such separate
tallies.
More important is that Donald tried to imply the ballot would have
separate slots for the 9,045 pairwise contests, in which case the ballot
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Alex Small wrote:
Donald Davison said:
I think both Approval and Condorect would fail this election.
Approval would have a leading candidate, but without a majority of the
voters.
No reason to demand a majority for Approval. The original design of this
Dear Paul,
I wrote (16 Aug 2003):
> In so far as Ranked Pairs meets monotonicity, reversal symmetry,
> independence from clones, and majority for solid coalitions in
> the general case, it meets, of course, these criteria also in
> the 135-candidate case. There is no reason why Ranked Pairs
> shou
At 5:56 AM -0400 8/16/03, Donald Davison wrote:
The Coming California Single Seat Election
I think both Approval and Condorect would fail this election.
There is no logical reason to believe this that I can see.
Approval would have a leading candidate, but without a majority of the voters.
Condo
Donald Davison said:
> I think both Approval and Condorect would fail this election.
>
> Approval would have a leading candidate, but without a majority of the
> voters.
Not necessarily. The field will probably narrow to a half-dozen or so
contenders in the next few weeks. Most people would vote
Dear Donald,
you wrote (16 Aug 2003):
> I have not seen anything said on this list about the coming
> California single seat election for governor. No one is
> suggesting that their favorite method should be used instead
> of Plurality. What's the problem? Do you sense your favorite
> method will
The Coming California Single Seat Election
Greetings List Members,
I have not seen anything said on this list about the coming California
single seat election for governor.
No one is suggesting that their favorite method should be used instead of
Plurality.
What's the problem? Do you sense yo
24 matches
Mail list logo
