Hi--
My name is Michael Ossipoff. I and Norman Petry, some years ago,
recommended, to Debian, a voting system called Cloneproof Schwartz
Sequential Dropping (CSSD).. That voting system is also sometimes
referred to as "Beatpath", because of equivalent definition in terms
of beatpath
The A voters rank sincerely, and the B voters defect:
99: A>B
2: B
100: C
Michael Ossipoff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/caokdy5b5svyhbji-eygp7-j9u53rotfpukfts6vwifud73-...@mail.gmail.com
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>>
>> 2 defecting B voters have stolen the election from 99 co-operative A voters.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here's
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>>
>> Below, I'll show examples of what can happen, but first I'll just
>> verbally summarize what can happen: First of all, of course A is the
&
Quoted below, I'd suggested holding a 2nd Up/Down ratification vote on
the winner of an election between several mutually-competting
proposals to amend the consititution, and requireing it to get 3 time
more Yes votes than No votes in that 2nd vote, the Yes/No ratification
vote.
It occurs to me th
Mutual Majority Criterion, no chicken dilemma, and
the Condorcet Criterion would make it the a good choice (the best
choice, I claim) for organizational voting.
Of course obviously, if Debian doesn't have a chicken dilemma, there's
no need for Debian to change its voting system fr
definition of Schwartz set:
There is a beatpath from X to Y if X beats Y, or if X beats A and
there is a beatpath from A to Y.
If there is a beatpath from Y to X, but not from X to Y, then X is not
in the Schwartz set.
Otherwise X is in the Schwartz set.
[end of beatpath definition of the Schwa
stitution, the cost
> of changing it is high; the burden of proof when arguing for a change is
> therefore high as well.
Quite so. And I fully accept and understand that Debian doesn't have a
chicken dilemma, and that changing the Debian voting system would
probably be a project that would
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> (With apologies to the non-Americans on -vote... :)
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:56:49AM -0400, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>> One reason why I've been advocating Schwartz Woodal (along with
>> Woodall and Benha
I'd like to correct a typo:
I referred to a voting system that I called "Sequential ICT" But that
wasn't what I meant.
I meant "Symmetrical ICT"
Symmetrical ICT is defined at electowiki.
Michael Ossipoff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@list
ho have replied to me here.
Michael Ossipoff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CAOKDY5CHDn5MKjqK1yA0mHXyZAzpR7FmPQ7os8txHf53rZT=v...@mail.gmail.com
11 matches
Mail list logo
