possible to achieve, but personally I think it can be done.
Mike Saari
to give every voter only a single vote - with resulting lack of
precision, ambiguity and lesser-of-evils second-guessing. I want to allow
each voter to express their feelings on each candidate, and with sufficient
breadth to allow truly informed group decisions. Is this so horrible?
Mike Saari
In a message dated 98-07-11 01:40:18 EDT, you write:
>Is Mr. Saari suggesting that if 99 poor voters spend $1 each on a choice and
>if 1 rich voter spends $100 to oppose such choice that the rich person should
>prevail ??
No, that's not how it works. The proposed payoff scale i
In a message dated 98-07-11 01:14:42 EDT, you write:
>Is Mr. Saari suggesting that if 1 voter votes 100 for choice A and 2 voters
>vote 49 for choice B that choice A should outrank choice B ?
This is the problem with most point systems - it is unclear what the points
really mean.
If t
In a message dated 98-07-11 20:16:05 EDT, you write:
>And
>if you chose A & B for voting a ratings difference, then why
>vote a small one??
...
>So that's the strategy to maximize your utility expectation:
>If the sum in the previous paragraph is positive for i, then
>give maximum votes to i. If
ike O is necessarily optimal.
And I do not see any compelling evidence that I should use a different
strategy when there are more voters rather than fewer voters.
Comments?
Mike Saari
blem - but perhaps
not impossible. Plus it would be necessary to make sure that there were no
incentives to exaggerate or lie. So it is by no means a trivial problem to
solve. I suspect it requires an "open ended" system with no fixed maximum
vote value - this is a difficult area. But at least it cannot be proven
impossible from the start as is apparently the case with all ranked voting
systems.)
Mike Saari
ndidate receiving the fewest first-
place votes - mentioned in Robert's Rules) fails this test.
Mike Saari
hed. It is clear to me that simple rankings do NOT contain enough of the
important original data. The ranking method of representation makes it easy
to have long involved discussions, but I find them to be more-or-less
worthless. Does anyone else out there agree with me, or am I the only person
willing to challenge the status quo?
Mike Saari
t;basic democratic principle" must always
select the candidate preferred by a majority - is merely that, an assertion.
I do not believe it is a necessary or even useful component of a valid group
decision-making method.
Mike Saari
t;basic democratic principle" must always
select the candidate preferred by a majority - is merely that, an assertion.
I do not believe it is a necessary or even useful component of a valid group
decision-making method.
Mike Saari
You have supplied a single situation and given us an assumed conclusion, but
the question as to whether a tallying method can be defined which makes any
sense at all on a variety of situations remains open.
Mike
>Mr. Saari wrote:
>I do not believe it is possible to include write-in vo
is no question of
"interpretation" by any ballot-counters in all but a few cases (mangled
ballots, etc.).
Perhaps "data" is a better term here than "information". It is clear that
rated ballots have the capability to contain more data than is possible in a
ranked ballot.
Mike Saari
ote-splitting problem).
I do not believe it is possible to include write-in votes in any ranked voting
scheme - because there is no data whatsoever regarding that particular write-
in candidate on the OTHER ballots, so the tallying method is not definable.
(Is this true? Perhaps not?)
Mike Saari
In a message dated 98-05-06 03:18:53 EDT, you write:
>Any set of "rated" ballots can be converted to ranked ballots (presuming
>ties are allowed on the ranked ballots).
I agree, and it is also clear that ranked ballots cannot be converted back to
rated ballots. This is strong evidence that ra
ther or not to
include it. This means they have the power to decide not, and therefore force
the group to choose something from a list of alternatives even if the group
actually prefers otherwise.
With multiple independent proposals, the group is always free to reject every
single proferred option if that is their choice.
Mike Saari
l pre-step of creating the "final list" (and
establishing an "official polling date/time"). Perhaps there is a method I am
not aware of?
Mike Saari
In a message dated 98-04-30 05:09:15 EDT, you write:
<< > Saari: Ranked votes (i.e. first, second, third) of ANY sort, regardless
of the
> scoring method being used, necessarily involve a dictatorial ballot-
creating
> function.
> Markus: That's why most election
er is
Support/Oppose/Neither/Both. Other versions can allow more gradations for
better expression.
Mike Saari
Regarding a system where a support/oppose ratio of 5:1 (for example) would be
used for all decisions.
DEMOREP:
"I also note that most current laws have been passed by minority rule
gerrymander regimes. Would such laws now need to get a 5 to 1 vote to
repeal them ?"
Donald:
No - the
e can be
made that B is a better overall choice, even though more than half of the
voters prefer A to B, means to me that the assertion that every sensible
voting method MUST choose A is highly suspect.
Mike Saari
s provide just enough data for people to argue
endlessly without possibility of success.
Mike Saari
In a message dated 97-10-03 07:18:36 EDT, you write:
>100 voters, 6 options (I don't want to know about examples with more
>options!)
>BCDFEA25
>CDFEAB24
>...long...
>Unless we can find some way making Condorcet acceptable, the details
>are of purely academic interest.
Consider two v
we possibly expect a good result if the input data
is insufficient?
Any/all replies welcome.
Mike Saari
hods (such as rated voting) fall outside the scope
of his proof.
Mike Saari
is lost, there is no way to confirm whether any given
outcome makes sense or not.
Mike Saari
A > B >
C ballot, since such a ballot effectively hides the relevant data (Does the
voter like or dislike candidate B?).
Mike Saari
>Mike Saari wrote:
>>For a simple Gaussian distribution, clearly the "best" result is at the
>>middle of the central peak, i.e. at the 50-percentile point. Surely we can
>>all agree on this, right?
>
>Donald writes: Wrong! Sorry Mike - but I do not agree. I
In a message dated 97-03-14 02:59:22 EST, you write:
>Rob L wrote:
>> The voting method that I proposed was *only* for finished documents.
>> That's it. Nothing else is binding in my book.
>>
>> It's a pure YES/NO vote (or SUPPORT/OPPOSE, I could care less) for
>> finished documents. When a fi
>The current FAQ is in place right now. It's at:
>http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/cpr/single-winner.html
Sorry, I didn't realize that this group had already approved a previous FAQ
version. I will proceed from that assumption - sorry for the confusion.
Mike S
The proposed outline contains alot of stuff. Some I like, some I dislike,
some I don't really understand. I would prefer to incorporate items on a
case-by-case basis so we can understand and determine the merits of each.
Mike S
In a message dated 97-02-23 13:11:59 EST, SteveE writes:
>The interesting feature about this new method is that it's not a
>ranked ballot method. It's a rating method.
>
>
>Define E to be the number of eligible voters.
>Define C to be the number of candidates.
>
>Define S to be 2EC rounded up
This is a "Call For Vote" for some content to be added to the FAQ. To vote,
please consult the previous message "THE FAQ POLL IS NOW OPEN" for
instructions.
Proposal Start:
Add this title at the beginning of the FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for the Election-Methods List
Proposal End.
This is a "Call For Vote" for some content to be added to the FAQ. To vote,
please consult the previous message "THE FAQ POLL IS NOW OPEN" for
instructions.
Proposal Start:
Add these section headings to the FAQ:
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Proposal End.
The deadline fo
Enclosed is the latest official version of the FAQ
(Frequently Asked Questions) file for this group. As
always, material may be added or deleted at any time,
but only by group decision. I will sporadically post to
the group a copy of the latest updated version.
Mike S
Secretary
P.S. This earl
>D- It is of course possible to have a Don't Care column---
> Yes No Don't Care
>A x
>B x
>Cx
>
>If so, should the Don't Care votes be half yes, half no votes such that a
>candidate may have a vot
>This sounds great to me. But one question, who are members of the VOTING
>group? Anyone on the listserve's list?
>
>Mike C.
If the list-owner specifies the voting members, then it is whatever he says.
Otherwise, it is anybody who bothers to vote (but probably members of EM -
other people woul
I would enjoy seeing a FAQ list generated by this group. However, I would
much rather see it generated by the entire group rather than autocratically.
Based on my previous work, I believe it is possible to create a
non-autocratic group decision system with NO ONE in a position of extra
power! F
Moved from ER for obvious reasons...
>Mike O:
>I mentioned a basic & simple majority rule principle, an
>obvious democratic principle honored only by Condorcet's
>method. In this final reply, I'd like to state it one
>more time:
>
>If a majority of all the voters indicate that they'd rather
>have
in the same bin as "No" doesn't adequately
represent the opinions of the voter. It also encourages "Yes" votes based on
nothing more than a willingness to be cooperative. Better to have honest
"neither" votes in these cases. The tallying system needs to NOT encourage
inaccurate votes.
Mike Saari
40 matches
Mail list logo
