Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
> [more range voting advocacy]
I will spare the readers of spi-general a point-by-point rebuttal.
I would caution readers against taking Barak's assertions at face
value. Man
Dimitri,
Of course we're discussing multiwinner systems: systems that elect
k-of-n people to a board, where k>1.
As you note, when k=n the election is uncontested so there is no need
for any voting system.
In the Burlington election discussed, k=1 and n=3. That's about the
simplest situation you
On 3 March 2017 at 13:46, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
>> You are advocating range voting. I remain convinced that range voting
>> is a terrible voting system, because all but the most tactically aware
>> voters will cast hopelessly ineffective ballots. This criticism
>> applies less to approval
On 2 March 2017 at 18:07, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> On 1 March 2017 at 13:47, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>> I have received tens of mails from FVC and none discussed monotonicity or
>> any technical point.
>
>> This was not a comment on the substance of Barak's claim.
>
> In my discussion of the
On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:28:53AM -0500, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
>
>I think it’s great that people are speaking up here with their
>thoughts on this matter, even if they rehash arguments that have been
>discussed ad nauseam earlier.
>
>I think it’s also reasonable to expect that those arguments won’t b
> You are advocating range voting. I remain convinced that range voting
> is a terrible voting system, because all but the most tactically aware
> voters will cast hopelessly ineffective ballots. This criticism
> applies less to approval voting, but approval voting still involves a
> lot of guess
On 1 March 2017 at 13:47, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> I have received tens of mails from FVC and none discussed monotonicity or
> any technical point.
> This was not a comment on the substance of Barak's claim.
In my discussion of these issues, I did my best to give pointers to
grounded technical
I think it’s great that people are speaking up here with their thoughts on this
matter, even if they rehash arguments that have been discussed ad nauseam
earlier.
I think it’s also reasonable to expect that those arguments won’t be
entertained again by everyone else at the same depth that they
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
> [stuff]
I've said all I want to say about choice of voting systems. It's
clear that you are not going to convince me; and that I am not going
to convince you. I suggest we
Luca Filipozzi writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:18:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > [1] Personally I think the voting system should be entrenched in
> > the bylaws but I have given up trying to persua
10 matches
Mail list logo
