On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 09:59:35PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
> A problem is that at the end of competent arguing no competent in the
> topic of selecting the correct winner could believe that the Condorcet
> winner is the desirable or right winner.
You're saying I'm incompetent.
You please reply
At 03\04\22 13:10 -0500 Tuesday, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Re Robonson wins [4...].ems [4...].ems <0880.0002>>
>*** PGP Signature Status: unknown
>*** Signer: Unknown, Key ID x2B46A27C
>*** Signed: 03\04\23 6:10:30 AM
>*** Verified: 03\04\23 2:37:21 PM
>*** BEGIN PGP
On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 14:10, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Perhaps I lost the election [...]
Nice try, we all know you won, just like last year, as described plainly
in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;-)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> In other words, if you held a vote which would ask whether to annul
> the vote and replace Martin with Brandon, the majority would be
> against that proposal.
Perhaps I lost the election because too many people could not find the
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:39:01PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
> The ballot paper
>
> 4
>
> is a special paper that gives the voter a power equal to 50,000 times
> the power of all other ballot papers. Only Mr Urlichs knows that.
Wrong, it's '6'.
Michael
--
67% of girls are stupid
Hi,
Craig Carey wrote:
> The ballot paper
> 4
> is a special paper that gives the voter a power equal to 50,000 times
> the power of all other ballot papers. Only Mr Urlichs knows that.
>
*ROTFL*
> The method can be used to elect the leader of the Debian project,
> but due to DCMA encrypt
At 03\04\21 16:46 +0200 Monday, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> He's one of /THEM/ and, no, I'm not permitted to go into details.
>
>Well, if we're having THAT kind of discussion, there's a couple of quotes
>which have been censored from the *CENSORED* report which prove that
>they have sucxiqz5
Drake Diedrich wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:46:06PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
[something or other]
If this was a real post and not a troll ... you need to be a *bit* less
emphatic with your opinions and more clear with your justifications. The
modification of IRV to handle equally
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:46:06PM +1200, Craig Carey wrote:
>
> This is a lengthy argument against the current Debian problem of
> wrongly rejecting Mr Branden Robinson who would almost certainly be
> the winner if the method of the last election was maximally proportional
> (and passing P2) and
Hi,
> He's one of /THEM/ and, no, I'm not permitted to go into details.
Well, if we're having THAT kind of discussion, there's a couple of quotes
which have been censored from the *CENSORED* report which prove that
they have sucxiqz567$%&
NO CARRIER
Michael Banck wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
> > who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
> > you held a vote which would ask whether to annul
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:44:38PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
> who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
> you held a vote which would ask whether to annul the vote and replace
> Marti
Hi,
Summary of my point:
This election has demonstrated quite nicely that those Debian developers
who voted prefer Martin to any other single candidate. In other words, if
you held a vote which would ask whether to annul the vote and replace
Martin with Brandon, the majority would be against t
This is a lengthy argument against the current Debian problem of
wrongly rejecting Mr Branden Robinson who would almost certainly be
the winner if the method of the last election was maximally proportional
(and passing P2) and monotonic. I.e. the method then is almost the
smallest adjustment that
14 matches
Mail list logo
