> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > "in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:20:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Might as well say which direction th
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > "in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Ok.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 12:20:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Might as well say which direction th
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > "in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
>
> Ok.
Might as well say which direction the preference goes, then.
"in decreasing order of the voter's preference
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > "in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
>
> Ok.
Might as well say which direction the preference goes, then.
"in decreasing order of the voter's preference
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:36:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If you have no propositions for a tie, how can you tell which options
> are involved in the tie?
Er.. never mind.
I definitely need to sleep on this before writing the next draft.
Thanks,
--
Raul
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:24:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Right. A tie is precisely when there are no uneliminated propositions (and
> thus no weakest uneliminated propositions that can be eliminated).
Consider a ballot with the options A, B, C, D, E. E is the default
option. The votes ar
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 02:36:36PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> If you have no propositions for a tie, how can you tell which options
> are involved in the tie?
Er.. never mind.
I definitely need to sleep on this before writing the next draft.
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:57:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > ] Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K, from
> > ] the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Alternatively, and IMO, simpler:
>
> Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K from
> the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
>
> Definition: V(X,Y) is the number of voters who prefer option
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> ] Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K, from
> ] the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Simpler doesn't count here, because you fail to handle pa
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:24:22AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Right. A tie is precisely when there are no uneliminated propositions (and
> thus no weakest uneliminated propositions that can be eliminated).
Consider a ballot with the options A, B, C, D, E. E is the default
option. The votes ar
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Alternatively, and IMO, simpler:
] Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K, from
] the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
]
] Definition: V(X,Y) is the number of voters who prefer option X to
] option Y.
]
] Definit
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:57:59PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > ] Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K, from
> > ] the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Alternatively, and IMO, simpler:
>
> Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K from
> the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
>
> Definition: V(X,Y) is the number of voters who prefer option
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> ] Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K, from
> ] the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Simpler doesn't count here, because you fail to handle pa
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Alternatively, and IMO, simpler:
] Definition: A proposition is a pair of options, J and K, from
] the Schwartz set, such that J defeats K.
]
] Definition: V(X,Y) is the number of voters who prefer option X to
] option Y.
]
] Definit
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> "in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
Ok.
> "If an option has a quorum requirement, Q, that option must have been
> preferred to the default option by at least Q voters."
>
> "If an option has a quorum requirement, Q,
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 10:42:40PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> "in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
Ok.
> "If an option has a quorum requirement, Q, that option must have been
> preferred to the default option by at least Q voters."
>
> "If an option has a quorum requirement, Q,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> A.6 Vote Counting
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. [...]
"in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
> 2. Options which do not defeat the default option
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> A.6 Vote Counting
> 1. Each ballot orders the options being voted on in the order
>specified by the voter. [...]
"in the order of the voter's preference." perhaps.
> 2. Options which do not defeat the default option
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 08:17:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Example: (X is the default option)
> >
> > ABCDX
> >A- 24 17 25 31
> >B 25- 26 24 29
> >C 31 24- 31 30
> >D 25 26 18- 27
> >X 15 18 15
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 08:17:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Example: (X is the default option)
> >
> > ABCDX
> >A- 24 17 25 31
> >B 25- 26 24 29
> >C 31 24- 31 30
> >D 25 26 18- 27
> >X 15 18 15
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:23:11AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Do we intend that the default option actually can win the vote?
> Am I correct that this only could happen via step 5?
You're right, I should it so that the default option doesn't need to
defeat the default option.
The interpretation
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:12:53AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> trying to actually implement the algorithm from the draft turns out to
> be a good test :-)
Ok. Note that I've not sat down and read your implementation, yet.
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:23:11AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Do we intend that the default option actually can win the vote?
> Am I correct that this only could happen via step 5?
You're right, I should it so that the default option doesn't need to
defeat the default option.
The interpretation
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:12:53AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> trying to actually implement the algorithm from the draft turns out to
> be a good test :-)
Ok. Note that I've not sat down and read your implementation, yet.
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> >
Hello Raul,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:44:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 09:31:08PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > Is the default option supposed to be in the list of options for which
> > we do "Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping" below? Maybe we
> > should replace
Hello Raul,
trying to actually implement the algorithm from the draft turns out to
be a good test :-)
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schwartz set,
>the weakest propositions are eliminated.
>
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:47:43PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Please replace "not smaller" with "larger or equal to", and vice versa,
> throughout the text. Those negatives make thinking about whatever it is
> that the text actually means ;-) more difficult.
Actually, based on a suggestion b
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 09:31:08PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Is the default option supposed to be in the list of options for which
> we do "Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping" below? Maybe we
> should replace "Options" by "Non-default options" in this paragraph?
For an option to be in the
Hi,
Raul Miller:
>Definition: The dominant strength of a proposition is the
>count of votes in a proposition which is not smaller than
>the other vote count in that proposition.
>
Please replace "not smaller" with "larger or equal to", and vice versa,
throughou
Hello Raul,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:44:40PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 09:31:08PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > Is the default option supposed to be in the list of options for which
> > we do "Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping" below? Maybe we
> > should replace
Hello Raul,
trying to actually implement the algorithm from the draft turns out to
be a good test :-)
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>ii. Unless this would eliminate all options in the Schwartz set,
>the weakest propositions are eliminated.
>
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:47:43PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Please replace "not smaller" with "larger or equal to", and vice versa,
> throughout the text. Those negatives make thinking about whatever it is
> that the text actually means ;-) more difficult.
Actually, based on a suggestion b
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 09:31:08PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Is the default option supposed to be in the list of options for which
> we do "Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping" below? Maybe we
> should replace "Options" by "Non-default options" in this paragraph?
For an option to be in the
Hello again!
Another one:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 3. If an option has a quorum requirement, that option must defeat
>the default option by the number of votes specified in the quorum
>requirement, or the option is eliminated.
We did not
Hello
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 2. Options which do not defeat the default option are eliminated.
>
>Definition: Option A defeats option B if more voters prefer A
>over B than prefer B over A.
Is the default option supposed to be in the li
Hi,
Raul Miller:
>Definition: The dominant strength of a proposition is the
>count of votes in a proposition which is not smaller than
>the other vote count in that proposition.
>
Please replace "not smaller" with "larger or equal to", and vice versa,
throughou
Hello,
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 1. [...] Any options unranked by the voter are treated
> >as being equal to all other unranked options.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 07:47:39PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I still do not understand the "other unranked
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 1. [...] Any options unranked by the voter are treated
>as being equal to all other unranked options.
I still do not understand the "other unranked options".
Could we simply write "Any options unranked by the voter a
Hello again!
Another one:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 3. If an option has a quorum requirement, that option must defeat
>the default option by the number of votes specified in the quorum
>requirement, or the option is eliminated.
We did not
Hello
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 2. Options which do not defeat the default option are eliminated.
>
>Definition: Option A defeats option B if more voters prefer A
>over B than prefer B over A.
Is the default option supposed to be in the li
Hello,
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 1. [...] Any options unranked by the voter are treated
> >as being equal to all other unranked options.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 07:47:39PM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I still do not understand the "other unranked
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:48:07PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 1. [...] Any options unranked by the voter are treated
>as being equal to all other unranked options.
I still do not understand the "other unranked options".
Could we simply write "Any options unranked by the voter a
44 matches
Mail list logo
