[EM] 04/24/02 - FWD Letters of Stéphane:

[Donald Davison]

04/24/02 - FWD Letters of Stéphane:

Greetings EM list,

Donald here, Stéphane has asked me to forward his 4/19 Summary letter to
the EM list.
He sent two letter on 4/19, so, I'm going to send both in the event
neither one was received by the EM list.

Stéphane wrote on 4/22/02:
Could you please forward the summary I sent to
the election-method-list. For a reason I do not understand
I cannot anymore post on the list.

Is Rob Lanpher the owner of the election-methods-list?
Do you have an e-mail to contact a moderator?
Or is it at the eskimo level I should contact an moderator?

Thanks, Steph.

  ------------ Forwarded Letter ------------
To: Electoral_systems_designers at yahoogroups.com
From: "stephanerouillon" <steph at crt.umontreal.ca>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:48:15 -0000
Subject: [Electoral_systems_designers] Single-winner election winner

And the winner is "Approval"

My poll is really pathetic.
Here are the ballots:
A
B
C
3 Blank votes
Applying the tie-breaking stupid rule gets Approval to win.
At least we got rid of FPTP for good (I hope).
Mr Ossipoff will be glad not showing finally might
have helped the result.

I start collecting multiple winner partisan election
candidates. Please submit proposal as precise as possible.
I close candidate nomination period at midnight tuesday for me,
after hockey...

The minimum number of members to start the next multiple
winner election will be 12.

Have fun,
Stéph.


  ------------ Forwarded Letter ------------
To: Electoral_systems_designers at yahoogroups.com
From: "stephanerouillon" <steph at crt.umontreal.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:42:04 -0000
Subject: [Electoral_systems_designers] Re: Single winner election summary

I am sorry it seems my engineer side
comes back faster than my mathematician side develops.

Among all the things I had to do, I read rapidly
Mr. Ossipoff tie-breaker because I hoped we would not need it
or at least not at the first round.

As I wrote in my mail of the 16th of April,
I simply loooked at the number of members when I closed the votation
period: 6. It is an even number.
Thus I picked the first candidate in alphabetical order
to be the winner:
Alternative Vote > Instant Run-off Vote > Ranked Pairs with margins
If Mr. Ossipoff would have registered without voting,
Ranked Pair would have win.
And I am sorry for Instant Run-off fans because yes the tie-breaker
was not totally fair for them in the case of total equality
in the first round.
It is not that important, Instant run-off fans will take their revenge
next iteration...

I believed we would be 7 and everybody would vote.
My mistake, my fault.
This tie-breaker rule is maintained until something better is
proposed: maybe you could explained to me your comprehension
of Mr. Ossipoff's rule.
Or if you think it is that important, next time we could use
the rest of the euclidian division of the number of members
by the number of tied candidates to give the rank of the winner.

Steph.

--- In Electoral_systems_designers at y..., Markus Schulze
<markus.schulze at a...> wrote:
> Dear Stephane,
>
> you wrote (19 April 2002):
> > And the winner is "Approval"
> >
> > My poll is really pathetic.
> > Here are the ballots:
> > A
> > B
> > C
> > 3 Blank votes
> > Applying the tie-breaking stupid rule gets Approval to win.
>
> You wrote (16 April 2002):
> > However, ties can be an issue with any proposal. If it was to
> > happen, I propose we use the tie-breaker rule that Mr. Ossipoff
> > sent on the EM list. I would have to look at it again, but it
> > is (I think) alphabetical order or reverse alphabetical order
> > depending on the number (even or odd) of voters. As we accept
> > voters to subscribe to the list at the last moment before vote
> > closure, this seems randomly fair enough for me to be used as
> > a last resort.
>
> Mike Ossipoff wrote (13 Apr 2002):
> > If 2 or more defeats have the same strength, then if their
> > strength is even, then the defeat considered the strongest
> > is the one whose defeating alternative's nomination-name is
> > alphabetized earliest. If their strength is odd, then the
> > defeat considered the strongest is the one whose nomination-name
> > is alphabetized the latest.
>
> Please explain why Mike Ossipoff's tiebreaker chooses Approval
> Voting in our poll!
>
> Markus Schulze


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em