I wouldn't doubt at all that he himself was elected on preferences. Best
source of info would be from www.aec.gov.au
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> An Australian MP is claiming that it may be time to rethink preference
> voting, adopting a first-past-the-post system instead, becau
I forgot to add: I only offer SD as a replacement for IRV. Only
if it's either SD or IRV. That's because SD, like IRV, is nonmonotonic,
meaning that you can make someone win by lowering him in your ranking,
where he'd otherwise have won.
I mentioned SD because it completely dominates IRV, and so
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Bart Ingles wrote:
> > The grass is always greener...
>
> Yup. I found a more detailed story here:
>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/politics/2000/12/item20001202100144_1.htm
>
> It seems a contribution was made to the Australian Democra
Ugh is the word. Some people just don't realise that you get deals no
matter what election method you're using - Deals to stay out in FPP,
How-to-vote exchanges (which is what the issue is - the Labor [I'm also a
member of that party] MHR for Lilley, which is an adjacent division to the
one I'm in
>From: Andy Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [EM] Representational government
>Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:52:46 -0800
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from [204.122.16.48] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id
>MHotMailBBF2CD9500A440043163CC7A1030
>
>you wrote (2 Dec 2000):
> > This, along with small party members' tendency to vote for a lesser-
> > evil in 1st place, and the parties reluctance to run more than 1
> > candidate, should be mentioned whenever someone talks about IRV's
> > "track record".
>
>However, I would like to know whe
Dear Markus--
You said:
>criteria and election methods are defined on the reported
>vNM utilities of the voters.
No. They're defined that way by you, and, according to you, by
some academics.
Most of the rest of us would agree that it would be pretty silly
to define methods & criteria based o
Dear Mike,
you wrote (2 Dec 2000):
> This, along with small party members' tendency to vote for a lesser-
> evil in 1st place, and the parties reluctance to run more than 1
> candidate, should be mentioned whenever someone talks about IRV's
> "track record".
However, I would like to know whether
(Slightly Off-topic)
We here in Canada have just had a federal election. The way it works in
canada is as follows: each "Riding" (geographically bounded area with a
certain population) elects an Member of Parliament (equivalent to member
of the HoR) The political party with the most MPs in parli
I'm still grasping for a counting method which is easily explained to the
public. Let me try this out with you. Using IRV, eliminate all but the two
top candidates, in order from least to most. A look at the real life
current returns in Florida shows, better than most mathematical formulas,
how
Markus's definition of sincere Approval voting says that reversing or
falsifying preferences among candidates other than the incumbant is
sincere. Nonsense.
Besides, it seems real funky to have different sincerity definitions
for different methods.
>To my opinion, "sincerity" must be defined i
>I note again my simple divided majority example-
>
>Polls show for *sincere* votes--
>
>26 AB
>25 BA
>49 C
>
>Will some of the C voters become liers and make *insincere* second choice
>votes ???
Why should they? They don't care between A & B.
>
>The sincere/insincere state of affairs will al
>An Australian MP is claiming that it may be time to rethink preference
>voting, adopting a first-past-the-post system instead, because how-to-vote
>tickets improperly influence voting behavior:
>---
>D- Is there a ticket that *properly* influences voting behavior ???
>
>How was such A. MP elect
Craig L.--
I've taken a closer look at the 2 definitions of sincere voting,
and would like to comment on the differences:
1. Your definition allows the voter to not vote a sincere preference,
while my definition only allows the omission of a sincere preference
when the method wouldn't allow it i
Dear Markus--
You said:
>in your example, candidate B is the Condorcet winner of the
>reported opinions. The Schulze method chooses candidate B.
>Therefore your example doesn't demonstrate a violation of
>the Condorcet criterion.
In my example, 60% of the voters, in when they vote their ratin
Any book reviewers on this list ???
Mount Holyoke College Voting Systems Expert Available to Comment on Issues
Related to the Election
SOUTH HADLEY, Mass., Nov. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Douglas J. Amy, a national
expert on voting systems and reform, is available to discuss national voting
An Australian MP is claiming that it may be time to rethink preference
voting, adopting a first-past-the-post system instead, because how-to-vote
tickets improperly influence voting behavior:
---
D- Is there a ticket that *properly* influences voting behavior ???
How was such A. MP elected ???
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Bart Ingles wrote:
> The grass is always greener...
Yup. I found a more detailed story here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/politics/2000/12/item20001202100144_1.htm
It seems a contribution was made to the Australian Democrats by the Labor
Party MP, presumably to influence the
18 matches
Mail list logo
