James Green-Armytage jarmyta-at-antioch-college.edu |EMlist| wrote:
James G-A replying to Russ
My first comment is that this proposal is significantly more complicated
than my (or Kevin's) "Ranked Approval Voting" (RAV) proposal, which
simply drops the least approved candidate until a CW is fou
Forest Simmons simmonfo-at-up.edu |EMlist| wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Russ!
I completely agree with what you wrote!
Just like you, I think that
an "ideal" election
method must integrate both ordinal and cardinal information, and the
cardinal information should be simple
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Russ!
I completely agree with what you wrote!
Just like you, I think that
an "ideal" election
method must integrate both ordinal and cardinal information, and the
cardinal information should be simple approval (yes/no for each
candidate).
I would eve
James G-A replying to Russ
>
>My first comment is that this proposal is significantly more complicated
>than my (or Kevin's) "Ranked Approval Voting" (RAV) proposal, which
>simply drops the least approved candidate until a CW is found.
Yes, I suppose the tally is harder to explain, alt
Russ wrote:
Your method is interesting, and it may have good properties. However, I
don't like the idea of dropping defeats. I think dropping candidates
based on approval scores is much easier to explain to the public and is
perfectly legitimate. But at this point that's just my opinion.
James w
Sorry! I hit the wrong key on that previous message. Please don't
include it in the message digest!
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Russ!
I completely agree with what you wrote!
Just like you, I think that
an "ideal" election
method must integrate both ordinal and cardinal information, and the
cardinal information should be simple approval (yes/no for each
candidate).
I would eve
Hi Russ,
Some replies follow, on the subject of cardinal pairwise in comparison
with other ordinal/cardinal methods.
>
>
>What if the two measures disagree about who is defeated? In other words,
>what if one candidate wins the pairwise race but the other wins the
>approval race?
>
James Green-Armytage jarmyta-at-antioch-college.edu |EMlist| wrote:
Hi Russ,
I suggest that the cardinal pairwise method provides a logical
conclusion
to some of your ruminations.
fc.antioch.edu/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/cwp13.pdf
or http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm
Th
Dear Russ!
I completely agree with what you wrote!
Just like you, I think that
> an "ideal" election
> method must integrate both ordinal and cardinal information, and the
> cardinal information should be simple approval (yes/no for each
> candidate).
I would even go so far to claim that the i
Hi Russ,
I suggest that the cardinal pairwise method provides a logical
conclusion
to some of your ruminations.
fc.antioch.edu/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/cwp13.pdf
or http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm
This method uses a continuous scale (e.g. 0-100) rather than a binar
Folks,
I've been busy for several days due to a family medical crisis, so I've
been unable to reply to the many interesting messages that have been
posted. However, I would like to present some general ideas I've been
thinking about. Some of them may be obvious, and most if not all are
probably
12 matches
Mail list logo
