Some legal language for using my suggested head to head methods for electing
legislative bodies and executive/ judicial officers.
A. Each voter may vote YES or NO for each candidate and may number vote (1, 2,
etc.) for his/her first, second, etc. choices.
B. For legislative bodies electing N per
Elections for executive and judicial officers should be nonpartisan. Elections
for legislative bodies should be using a proportional representation method
(i.e. not using Approval).
Simple Approval Voting should only be used if number voting technology does
not exist and/or as an interim means to
I had to reply in several short installments to Blakes letters
about twins & LO2E. That's due to a netcom problem. I mention
it so that those multiple replies won't look like duplicates
of one reply. I'd have changed the subject lines, but to do
so would be to risk netcom's screwup happening befo
I'd like to answer the reversed-rankings nonsense, though I
already have.
Blake claimed that VA will pick the same candidate if you
reverse all the rankings. Or at least implied that it will
do so often under ordinary plausible conditions. Nonsense.
With a 1-dimensional policy space, one of the
replying farther down:
>
> I think it's worth pointing out that Approval's LO2E assurance
> is rather different from the ranked methods'. That is, in the
> ranked methods, if there is a candidate ranked last on a majority
> of ballots, that candidate will lose, and another candidate will
>
>
> I think it's worth pointing out that Approval's LO2E assurance
> is rather different from the ranked methods'. That is, in the
I haven't made a secret of that, Blake: Approval doesn't assure
you that you'll never have strategic need to vote a less-liked
alternative equal to your favorite
replying farther down:
>
> I consider rich-party and vote-splitting to be two of the most
> important problems, so I think it's important to ask how well
> approval does in regard to them.
>
> Certainly, approval passes GITC. However, GITC was designed
> for rank methods. In theory, plura
>
replying farther down:
> I consider rich-party and vote-splitting to be two of the most
> important problems, so I think it's important to ask how well
> approval does in regard to them.
>
> Certainly, approval passes GITC. However, GITC was designed
> for rank methods. In theory, pluralit
>
> I consider rich-party and vote-splitting to be two of the most
> important problems, so I think it's important to ask how well
> approval does in regard to them.
>
> Certainly, approval passes GITC. However, GITC was designed
> for rank methods. In theory, plurality passes GITC.
In no way
I think it's worth pointing out that Approval's LO2E assurance
is rather different from the ranked methods'. That is, in the
ranked methods, if there is a candidate ranked last on a majority
of ballots, that candidate will lose, and another candidate will
win. In approval, the majority may void
I consider rich-party and vote-splitting to be two of the most
important problems, so I think it's important to ask how well
approval does in regard to them.
Certainly, approval passes GITC. However, GITC was designed
for rank methods. In theory, plurality passes GITC.
In ranked methods, a vot
On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:44:18 DEMOREP1 wrote:
>Mr. Cretney wrote in part-
>
>Here's an example of what I mean. I consider 3 alternatives, the first
>two are candidates, the third (C) is whatever happens if no candidate
>gets an absolute approval majority.
>
>Sincere preference
>A > B > C
>None
Mr. Fiterman wrote in part-
I think the answer is to have some kind of rule of succession which allows
things to go on as usual. A vote for John Smith is a vote for John Smith or
his delegated successor.
I agree for legislative body candidates or members (since the voters would
expect that a
At 12:09 PM 10/28/98 +1000, you wrote:
>In Australia the death or unforeseen removal of a candidate elicits a
>new election which is scheduled back to give the new candidates time to
>campaign. It happened in our latest election that a candidate for a minor
>party (Australian Democrats) died (natur
14 matches
Mail list logo
