Forwarded Digest ---
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 04:02:48 -0500
From: Rob Richie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fair Elections: Legislation, reports, democracy conference, more:
Sender: Rob Richie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
April 6, 2001
To: Friends of Fair Electi
Rob wrote:
But
when it comes to margins vs. winning-votes (also known as votes-against
or defeat-support), I don't think strategy turns out to be an issue,
unfortunately, because winning-votes doesn't actually get around the
problem. Under winning-votes, a voter can order sincere ties in
prefe
>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
>> Subject: [EM] no primary
>> Anthony wrote:
>> In other words, two
>> round runoff. No more primary.
>> Not that big a change.
>> I reply:
>> Getting rid of the primary and switching from Plurality to
>> Runoff are big changes. [...]
You left out some things. The p
>> From: Tom Ruen
>> Subject: Re: [EM] 3 choices/5 voters Example
>> I like the idea of including a None-of-the Above choice
>> (explicit or implicit) and if this "choice" wins the
>> election, then all the candidates are discarded and a new
>> election must be held with all new candidates! This
Howdy all,
Here are the results of my simulations. Each one ran 9 elections
and each election had 1 voters. The only difference among the
simulations was the number of candidates per election: one had 4, one 10
and one 25. The results tables use abbreviations for the methods that
are d
>> From: Craig Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> At 2001-04-12 19:09 +0100 Thursday, Martin Harper wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >What have I missed? Something important clearly...
>> >
>> I decline to answer. I am quitting.
Thank you.
>> This list has subscribers that appear to be very stupi
Give a scale vote to each choice.
Example- Max = 100, Min = 0
A 30
B 0
C 10
D 100
E 20
F 99
The above in reality might become
A 3
B 0
C 1
D 100
E 2
F 99
There might be a requirement that no 2 choices get the same scale vote -- to
prevent ALL 100 or 0 votes - even among 2 or more liberal
Dear Markus,
Before I comment on Duncan Black, I'll give an interesting quote from
Condorcet that is relevant to the current subject. He's advocating
the Condorcet criterion (though not in name). He gives an example of
three candidates, where C pairwise beats the other two, and B pairwise
beats
Ranking of pairs (or anything else) does NOT show any *absolute* support (on
a plus 100 percent to minus 100 percent scale).
There are at least 3 tables floating around in multiple choice elections--
1. Absolute Scale Table (100 percent to minus 100 percent) (with variants
such as limited scal
Mr. Harper wrote in part-
The question is - is it better to reduce the number of candidates standing by
charging candidates for standing, or by having a method which isn't fully
independant from vote splitting problems? What should be aimed for in terms
of numbers of frivolous and serious candida
Here are my brief campaign arguments. I hope that people take this
election seriously. As possibly the only list that discusses these
methods, we can have an influence. Not a tremendous influence; I
don't imagine governments paying close attention to what we decide.
But an influence neverthele
Whether or not they do well, having them on the list means that there will
be a broader range of voter utilities which (in my opinion) makes the
contest
more interesting. So I'll play the devil's advocate and nominate all
three of
them.
Richard
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>
> Richard wrote:
>
> S
Just a thought...
It seems that most countries throughout the world try and keep their
elections nice and simple, by reducing the numbers of candidates running. In
the UK they charge people for losing their deposit, in other places they
require a minimum of X% of the popular vote to get any seats
13 matches
Mail list logo
