On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Josh berkus wrote:
On 03/07/2017 10:29 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
But STV is still a "single-winner" system. Any multi-winner
implementation of it we choose would *still* be experimental
Aha, just found the multi-winner math for STV. Please ignore this part
of my arguments.
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting
algorithm for Board elections)"):
> Concordet is not a winning-faction-take-all system. It is a "most
> acceptable candidate" system. Which kinda makes this argument invalid.
Condo
On 03/07/2017 10:29 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
> But STV is still a "single-winner" system. Any multi-winner
> implementation of it we choose would *still* be experimental
Aha, just found the multi-winner math for STV. Please ignore this part
of my arguments. The other parts still apply.
_
On 03/07/2017 10:13 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting
> algorithm for Board elections)"):
>> So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems
>> terribly persuasive compared
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting
algorithm for Board elections)"):
> So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems
> terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and
> fixing the prob
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 08:50:09PM -0800, Josh berkus wrote:
> So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems
> terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and
> fixing the problem with unranked candidates
FWIW this is already fixed; the current system supp
Ian, All:
So in all of this discussion, I've not heard anything which seems
terribly persuasive compared with just taking our existing system and
fixing the problem with unranked candidates (and maybe providing a
slightly better UI).
Yes, we could use a different system, but why?
The system we c
On 4 March 2017 at 13:01, Markus Schulze
wrote:
> I recommend Schulze STV.
It is a very nice algorithm, which does about as well as any
polynomial-time algorithm could using rank ballots. It certainly
overcomes a lot of the practical pathologies in ScottishSTV or more
generally IRV-based STV syst
On 2017-03-03 10:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
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 co
On 3 March 2017 at 22:05, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> In the Burlington election discussed, k=1 and n=3. That's about the
> simplest situation you can have, so any credible multiwinner system
> should perform flawlessly in that degenerate case, one would hope!
>
It is illogical to assume that m
Hi Dimitri,
On 2017-03-03 11:26, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
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 sub
On 3 March 2017 at 22:05, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote:
> 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 el
Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting
algorithm for Board elections)"):
> Purely as a FYI on Schulze method, it is implemented in the Liquid
> Feedback system: http://liquidfeedback.org/
Thanks. That's interesting. I wasn't
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
> I have backed up my statements with pointers, either direct or nearly so, to
> primary analyses and scientific literature.
>
> If the analytical ap
Purely as a FYI on Schulze method, it is implemented in the Liquid
Feedback system: http://liquidfeedback.org/
Liquid Feedback has been used for years in Central Europe, notably by
several chapters of the Pirate Party, but also some cooperatives, etc.
Note: LF itself is IMO not suitable for use b
I would caution readers against taking Barak's assertions at face
value. Many of them, including some of the underlying factual
assertions, are flat-out wrong; and the analytical approach is
fundamentally flawed.
Ian.
I have backed up my statements with pointers, either direct or nearly so,
to
Hallo,
I recommend Schulze STV. This method is described mainly
in section 9 of this paper:
http://m-schulze.9mail.de/verylong.pdf
Source codes can be found here:
http://m-schulze.9mail.de/schulze3.zip
multi01g.cpp is multi-threading for g++.
multi01v.cpp is multi-threading for Microsoft Visu
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 as
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
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
On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the pre
On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the pre
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 07:18:06PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The choice of voting system should not be left to the Secretary. Currently,
> the proposal is to have the Board select STV. If a future Board wants to
> change its mind and select something else in future, then that is quite
> possibl
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
> Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
> technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.
I'm so
Hi Joshua, Ian,
On 2017-02-28 12:57, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 02/28/2017 09:38 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 02/28/2017 07:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board
elections [and
32 matches
Mail list logo
