04/04/02 - Stéphane wrote: "I only prefer Hare quota..."
Dear Mr. Stéphane Rouillon,
For years, I too only preferred the Hare quota, but in time I became aware
of the weakness of the Hare Preferential Plan and the ways in which this
weakness can be corrected.
I can best explain if I start with
04/04/02 - Rob LeGrand's Three way Tie:
Rob LeGrand, you wrote:
"Donald's imagined Approval strategy can backfire badly for the two largest
factions. Consider
49:Reagan>Anderson>Carter
33:Carter>Anderson>Reagan
18:Anderson>Carter>Reagan
According to Donald, neither the Reagan nor the Carter v
http://www.fec.gov/pages/VSSAPRegnotice.htm
Register Now for the
2002 Voting Systems Standards and
Advisory Panel Meetings
The Federal Election Commission's Office of Election
Administration invites you to attend a meeting introducing the updated
Voting Systems Standards documen
Origin of clones-
N1 A > B
N2 B > A
N Total votes
C comes along
C *may* beat -
A
B
A and B
neither A or B (is beat by both A and B).
The degree of beatings may, of course, vary --- by 1 vote to 100 percent of
the votes.
One can not obviously detect if a beating is due to internal *clonenes
Primary Votes of new U.S.A. Representatives and U.S.A. Senators, 2000 Election
The below ONLY is for new members with reported primary votes.
PV Primary (or top 2 Runoff Primary) election votes
GV General election votes
Pct - PV as percent of GV
U.S.A. Representatives 2000 Election
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>
> Rob LG said:
>
> Rob LG continued:
>
> When an election is definitely zero-information, finely-grained Cardinal
> Ratings is undoubtedly the champ. In fact, when no strategy is possible, I'd
> rather the sincere CR winner win than the Condorcet wi
Rob's proposal sounds familiar, as well as maybe even plausible. Let's try
it out on a very simple election:
100: A>B
(A and B are the only candidates, everyone loves A and detests B.)
Delete B from ballots, you get: 100: A
Delete A from ballots, rename B as A, you get: 100: A
The propo
Alex, thanks for the answer.
This was the question I was shooting for...
Demorep offered numbers like...
AZ House +20.53% GOP overrepresentation
KY House +23.43% Dem overrepresentation
One can't just add those two numbers to find out, overall, which party, and
by how much, is overrepresented i
Josh wrote and Demorep replied:
>>Is there any way to sum the House and Senate over/under representation
>>figures?
>
>D- It depends a bit.
>
>Votes for losers in gerrymander/ plurality areas are obviously ALL
>*wasted*--under-represented votes.
>
>Votes more than the votes for the second place c
Josh asked-
Is there any way to sum the House and Senate over/under representation
figures?
---
D- It depends a bit.
Votes for losers in gerrymander/ plurality areas are obviously ALL *wasted*
-- under-represented votes.
Votes more than the votes for the second place choice are *wasted* (tho
Donald wrote:
>When the people have reason to support a third party they will support a
>third party.
We have plenty of reason to do so. It is unfathomable that two only two
options, diametrically opposed in rhetoric (if not in actions) can
represent all of America.
>It is understandable that
George Walker Bush is going to send zero emails for his entire Presidency,
in part, for this reason. In part, because he wants no trail.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:03 AM
To: [EM]
Subject: [EM] 04/03/02 - Cretney
This article was about a small (pop 10K) town in CT where the new residents
(wealthy) democratically voted for a very large bond issue to improve the
already notable local school system. The author contends that Democracy
failed the long time residents, whom he refers to as "Swamp Yankees."
It's
Hi!
I told the story, poorly, perhaps, of the changes in the process of
Reapportionment in the United States. I did this primarily to indicate how
progress in Election Methods might occur.
1. The National Academy of Sciences will have to study the issue for many
years.
They've got some quality
http://elections.bc.ca/init/i2002.html
The bill is very interesting but I'm not happy with the wording in the
quote. It's not very precise and apparently there is no provision for
overhang seats. Of course it may be simply that I cannot read the text
properly.
>Regulations for allocating party s
Don Davidson wrote:
>Adam, you are confused. It is not a weakness of IRV that it does not
>interfer with the voters and with an election when it does not break the
>system out of a two-party duopoly. Instead, it is the strength of IRV that
>it allows the public to break the system out of a two-
04/03/02 - Cretney is not reading all his EM email:
Greetings list,
Cretney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"First, this looks like a personal correspondence between Craig and Rob.
Presumably Craig forwarded this to you..."
Davison here, Cretney, you presume wrong. I don't fault you for not
readin
04/03/02 - Mr Stéphane Rouillon wrote:
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:25:55 -0500
1000: A,B
1000: A,C
1000: B,C
1000: B,A
1000: C,A
1000: C,B
Maybe I am mistaken, but this example seems very realistic to me.
Hi Stéphane, Donald here, you are mistaken.
Your example has 6000 votes divided exactly
18 matches
Mail list logo
