I replied to this message some days ago, and sent my
reply in, but maybe I sent it to the old list address,
because it isn't in the archives:
I'd said:
Majority matters because it's a group of people whose need for defensive
strategy can be minimized to a degree qualitatively better than
can be
Steve wrote:
In a recent message I erred when I said Mike Ossipoff
considers MAM best in both committees and public elections,
judging by his recent messages in EM that say he thinks
it's better in public elections but not in committees.
I reply:
No error or contradiction. I agree that RP(wv)is
_
Markus--
You wrote:
So you say that there is no significant merit difference
between Ranked Pairs and the beat path method, that its
"elegantly simple & brief algorithm & computer program"
make the beat path method a better proposal for committees,
and that its brief definition makes Ranked Pairs
Markus wrote:
> For example, when there are 15 candidates then the Smith//MinMax winner
> and the winner of the beat path method are identical in 91.7% while the
> Smith//MinMax winner and the Ranked Pairs winner are identical in only
> 41.8% of all situations:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elect
See typo correction below:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> If there are fewer than five candidates there is no need to have four bit
> ballots. With three candidates two bits are sufficient, so the method
> would be the same as the one Venzke described.
Should be " ... the one St
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, [iso-8859-1] Kevin Venzke wrote:
> Forest,
>
> This is an interesting idea.
>
> I was trying to do some examples with it, but I'm not
> sure how to create the four matrices. These are the
> ballots I was trying to use:
>
> 12: A at 10 (fill 8 and 2 circles)
> 11: B at 7 (fi
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Olli Salmi wrote:
> Forest,
>
> I've found this method of yours fascinating.
>
> At 18:45 +0200 6.2.2002, Forest Simmons wrote:
> >> One option might be to decay a voter's ballot based on the position of the
> >> elected candidate on the ballot... a sort of Borda-based decay
At 13:05 -0500 13.3.2003, Narins, Josh wrote:
For instance, today I am wondering when the next Aussie election that could
result in a change in PM might occur.
This may be what you are looking for:
http://www.electionworld.org/
These may also be interesting
http://dodgson.ucsd.edu/lij/
http://www.p
I like http://australianpolitics.com/ . It has several fairly detailed pages
of info about how Australian elections work, about the political parties
and so on. There is also some info about British and American politics and
elections.
I don't know of any worldwide summary info, but you co
This is interesting stuff, but nobody knows about any general resources?
For instance, today I am wondering when the next Aussie election that could
result in a change in PM might occur.
:)
Thx in advance.
> -Original Message-
> From: Olli Salmi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wedne
Forest wrote:
> There's also the possibility that somebody else has already named the
> corresponding method based on pairwise matrices derived from fully ranked
> preference ballots.
>
> A while back Rob LeGrand was tracking down names for everybody's favorite
> methods. Perhaps he would know.
N
Forest,
This is an interesting idea.
I was trying to do some examples with it, but I'm not
sure how to create the four matrices. These are the
ballots I was trying to use:
12: A at 10 (fill 8 and 2 circles)
11: B at 7 (fill 4, 2, 1)
I'm also not sure how the winner on the finest matrix
might n
Dear Steve,
you wrote (12 March 2003):
> As for your conjecture that MAM and BeatpathWinner would probably
> perform about the same in a simulation that adds a randomly ranked
> candidate (or, equivalently, a simulation that retallies after
> deleting a random loser, which might be easier to wr
13 matches
Mail list logo
