2004-January Archives by Author

• Messages sorted by: [ thread ] [ subject ] [ date ]
• More info on this list...

Starting: Thu Jan 1 14:50:01 2004
Ending: Sat Jan 31 23:48:02 2004
Messages: 452

• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3 why Aussies vote party tickets   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] The matter of whether people strategize   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] The matter of whether people strategize   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] The matter of whether people strategize   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] Bill Lewis, never re-district   =?iso-8859-1?q?Anthony=20Duff?=
• [EM] bicameral design poll   =?iso-8859-1?q?Jeffrey=20O'Neill?=
• [EM] Re: bicameral design poll   =?iso-8859-1?q?Jeffrey=20O'Neill?=
• [EM] pSTV v0.2   =?iso-8859-1?q?Jeffrey=20O'Neill?=
• [EM] Re: Later-no-harm, Mono-add-top, etc.   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Re: Later-no-harm, Mono-add-top, etc.   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] CCSCRRIRVE (maybe "Schwartz//SC-Coombs"?)   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] DSC = DOC, meets ENHarm   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Re: Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV)   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Re: "Complete" truncated rankings? Does Woodall give a reason?   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] SCRRIRVE; my folly   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] "Completion" & falsification   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Re: Falsification & "completion"   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Your Vote Counts! (silly voting methods)   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Your Vote Counts! (silly voting methods)   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] notes on criteria   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Woodall's criteria (a list, including methods)   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] a mitigating feature of AER   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] a tiny error (Woodall's criteria)   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tournament   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Bill: Re: our criteria & definitions   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Approval vs. CR, chess analogy   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Schwartz and Mono-add-top compatibility   =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?=
• [EM] Re: Later-no-harm, Mono-add-top, etc.   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: Later-no-harm, Mono-add-top, etc.   Chris Benham
• [EM] Sincere rankings in the methods comparison test   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: (Better) Smith Majority Approval   Chris Benham
• [EM] Condorcet completed by SC reversed-rankings IRV elimination   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: CCSCRRIVE   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: Reversed rankings, symetrically completed   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: CCSCRRIRVE (last 2 sentences corrected)   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: "Complete" truncated rankings? Does Woodall give a reason?   Chris Benham
• [EM] Symetric Completion equals "falsification"?   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: SCRRIRVE; my folly   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: "Completion" & falsification   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: SCRRIRVE & MO's example   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: Condorcet completed by SC reverse rankings IRV elimination   Chris Benham
• [EM] Donald Davison asked about One Man One Vote ideal of STV   Craig Carey
• [EM] Rejecting fairness without a spec of reasoning   Craig Carey
• [EM] Rejecting fairness without a spec of reasoning   Craig Carey
• [EM] Bill Clark: rejecting Mike Ossipoff's rules for being wrong   Craig Carey
• [EM] Ossipoff's lost 8 proofs now supplied by Adam Tarr Re: [EM] Clarifying the definitions   Craig Carey
• [EM] Ossipoff's lost 8 proofs now supplied by Adam Tarr Re: [EM] Clarifying the definitions   Craig Carey
• [EM] Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV)   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Re: Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV)   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To MIKE OSSIPOFF, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Re: Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV)   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] The matter of whether people strategize   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Sunday reply to Bill Lewis Clark   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Sunday reply to Bill Lewis Clark   Bill Lewis Clark
• IRV as a stepping stone [WAS: Re: [EM] Sunday reply to Bill Lewis Clark]   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] What do we mean by 'your vote counts'?   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Re: To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] IRV vs. Plurality [WAS: Re: To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone]   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Re: To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] IRV vs Plurality   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Lesser-of-2-evils voting   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Approval vs. CR (again)   Bill Lewis Clark
• Mike Ossipoff's Insults [WAS: Re: [EM] Expert Wrap-up. Criteria inclusion. Objectivity.]   Bill Lewis Clark
• PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone]   Bill Lewis Clark
• PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] Bill Lewis, never re-district]   Bill Lewis Clark
• [EM] Methods that elect all seats by the same faction:   Donald Davison
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] Inferring Approval Strategy From Ranked Ballots   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] David Gamble reply, 1/23/03 1012 GMT   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] David Gamble reply, 24/1/04 0815 GM   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] David Gamble reply, 1/23/03 1012 GMT   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dgamble997@aol.com
• [EM] What Mike can teach us   Dgamble997@aol.com
• Allow indifference? (was Re: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tournament)   Steve Eppley
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Steve Eppley
• [EM] Rejecting fairness without a spec of reasoning   Diana Galletly
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Diana Galletly
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   James Gilmour
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   James Gilmour
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   James Gilmour
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   James Gilmour
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   James Gilmour
• [EM] bicameral design poll   James Gilmour
• [EM] Re: bicameral design poll   James Gilmour
• [EM] Re: bicameral design poll   James Gilmour
• [EM] Election districts (was bicameral design poll)   James Gilmour
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   James Gilmour
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   James Gilmour
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   James Gilmour
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   James Gilmour
• [EM] Doesn't everybody see that IRV=BORDA?   James Gilmour
• [EM] Doesn't everybody see that IRV=BORDA?   James Gilmour
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   James Gilmour
• [EM] Doesn't everybody see that IRV=BORDA?   James Gilmour
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   James Gilmour
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   James Gilmour
• PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] Bill Lewis, never re-district]   James Gilmour
• PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] Bill Lewis, never re-district]   James Gilmour
• [EM] Re: PR vs. Geographic Representation   James Gilmour
• [EM] My Condorcet Site   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Eric Gorr's web site   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Eric Gorr's web site   Eric Gorr
• [EM] PHP Source now posted   Eric Gorr
• [EM] condorcet.org / IRV   Eric Gorr
• IRV as a stepping stone [WAS: Re: [EM] Sunday reply to Bill Lewis Clark]   Eric Gorr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Eric Gorr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Eric Gorr
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Eric Gorr
• [EM] What do we mean by "your vote counts"?   Eric Gorr
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Eric Gorr
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Eric Gorr
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Eric Gorr
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must   Eric Gorr
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must   Eric Gorr
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must   Eric Gorr
• [EM] What do we mean by "your vote counts"?   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Your Vote Counts! (silly voting methods)   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Your Vote Counts! (silly voting methods)   Eric Gorr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Eric Gorr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Eric Gorr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Eric Gorr
• [EM] IRV vs Plurality   Eric Gorr
• [EM] IRV vs Plurality   Eric Gorr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Eric Gorr
• [EM] another example   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Advocating Condorcet   Eric Gorr
• [EM] condorcet.org   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Approval satisfies CC   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Site updates   Eric Gorr
• [EM] "MinMax" can mean almost anything   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Condorcet strategy and anti-reversal enhancements   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Condorcet completed by SC reversed-rankings IRV elimination   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] SCRRIRVE; my folly   James Green-Armytage
• PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] Bill Lewis, never re-dist   James Green-Armytage
• [centroids] [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Chris Hahn
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Multiwinner elections   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Testing 1 2 3   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Sincere rankings in the methods comparison test   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Approval strategy from rankings   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Algorithm to Calculate the Schwartz Set   Bart Ingles
• [EM] CCSCRRIRVE (maybe "Schwartz//SC-Coombs"?)   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Re: CCSCRRIVE   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV)   Bart Ingles
• [EM] To MIKE OSSIPOFF, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Bart Ingles
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Bart Ingles
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Bart Ingles
• [EM] The matter of whether people strategize   Bart Ingles
• [EM] The matter of whether people strategize   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Low SU CWs?   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Low SU CWs?   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Doesn't everybody see that IRV=BORDA?   Bart Ingles
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bart Ingles
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bart Ingles
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bart Ingles
• [EM] IRV vs Plurality   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Interesting link   Bart Ingles
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Bart Ingles
• [EM] Computer & Internet voting   Ken Johnson
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Toplak Jurij
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Toplak Jurij
• [EM] Book Electoral Choice (and some other news)   Toplak Jurij
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Dave Ketchum
• [centroids] [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Dave Ketchum
• [EM] Multiwinner elections   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Methods that elect all seats by the same faction:   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Re: MIKE OSSIPOFF's Paul Kislanko reply   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Doesn't everybody see that IRV=BORDA?   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Apologies and corrections re: Borda and IRV   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Doesn't everybody see that IRV=BORDA?   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] What do we mean by "your vote counts"?   Jan Kok
• [EM] What do we mean by "your vote counts"?   Jan Kok
• [EM] Your Vote Counts! (silly voting methods)   Jan Kok
• [EM] YVC vs. EMMM   Jan Kok
• [EM] Extremely simple voting for committee [Was Re: PR vs. Geographic Representation]   Jan Kok
• Public names for Condorcet methods (Was: Re: [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV)   Gervase Lam
• [EM] Extremely simple voting for committee [Was Re: PR vs. Geographic Representation]   Gervase Lam
• Cardinal Ratings == Range Voting? (Re: [EM] Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV))   Rob Lanphier
• [EM] Re: bicameral design poll   Rob LeGrand
• [EM] Re: Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV)   Rob LeGrand
• [EM] Re: To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Rob LeGrand
• [EM] Sunday reply to Bill Lewis Clark   Richard Moore
• [EM] Approval vs. CR (again)   Richard Moore
• [EM] Re: Approval vs. CR (again)   Richard Moore
• [EM] Multiwinner elections   Andrew Myers
• [EM] Re: Advocating Condorcet   Andrew Myers
• [EM] Calling something by a name that means something else. Justification for PC.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Kevin: Your method has truncation strategy   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Approval strategy for the methods comparison test   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Sincere rankings in the methods comparison test   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Approval strategy from rankings   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Approval _is_ like sincere Borda.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Sincere voting till one finds out about the strategy problem.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Condorcet's words   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] The Nash Equilibrium method for counting rankings. Other "player" definition.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Unanimity test works with many candidates. How it works.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Automatic Withdrawal of Losing Candidates   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] New methods wrap-up   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Automated districting   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Maps on which to draw rectangular districts   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Better wording of districting formula   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] For when it's desired to do latitude/longitude districts without a map   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Hexagons won't make districts   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] That method is Schwartz PC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] That's Schwartz PC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Districting maps   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Methods, pair-ties, Schwartz, Smith   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Districts from gnomonic map have virtually right angle corners.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] It's a tie between A & B.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Districts from Gnomonic map have virtually right-angle corners   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] 2 minor corrections about U.S. districts   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Reply to D. Gamble   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Smith Majority Approval   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Better Smith Majority Approval   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] How good can a method be?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Wording clarification   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Yes, SMA does sound like ACC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Preliminary first imprression--more tomorrow   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] SMA vs ACC (Reply to James' posting will be along in about a day or 2)   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: reversed rankings, symmetrically completed   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Sunday reply to Bill Lewis Clark   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] "Complete" (falsify) truncated rankings? Does Woodall give a reason?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] To D. Gamble, re: strategy   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] The matter of whether people strategize   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Info doesn't change extreme voting in CR   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Falsifying rankings. Woodall's criteria. Your method.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] "Completion" & falsification   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] What's known about SCRRIRVE? Raynaud.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] No evidence that IRV doesn't fail. Reasons why it must.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] The IRV non-reform   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Falsification & "completion"   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Contd, "Completion" & falsification   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: SCRRIRVE & my example   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] David Gamble reply, 1/23/03 1012 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Big typo!   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] What count means?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] What count means?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Paul Kislanko reply   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Low SU CWs?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] David Gamble reply, 24/1/04 0815 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Richard was right: The elections are 0-info.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Woodall's Whacky & Zany Criteria   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] David Gambld reply, 25/1/04, 0620   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] CW maximizes SU in several dimensions, with assumptions   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Expert Wrap-up. Criteria inclusion. Objectivity.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] SCRRIRVE examples   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Expert wrap-up. Criteria inclusion. Objectivity.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Lesser-of-2-evils voting   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Answering Markus once, to conclude the topic   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Typo: Markus, not Steve demonstrated what I meant.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] More CWs who maximize SU with more than 1 issue-dimension   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] LNH again   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Bill: Re: our criteria & definitions   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Demonstration that Approval doesn't pass our CC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Smith PC doesn't have any serious problem. Specify pairwise count first. PC dfn.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] With standard assumptions, CW is always SU, even with Euclidean distance.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Demonstrations of CW SU claims   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] You want us to propose methods that fail our criteria & standards?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] The answer: Yes Markus said it again.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Bill & our definitions   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James--wv & order-reversal. Ways of thwarting order-reversal.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Clarifying the definitions   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Explanation to Markus   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] I did reply to Craig's e-mail   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] PC isn't Simpson-Kramer. MinMax isn't a method-name. I'll name my poposals.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Election districts (was bicameral design poll)   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] New (?) Condorcet method: LeastSchwartzBeat   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Maps on which to draw rectangular districts   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Compactness   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Compactness   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Districting Quests: Quixotic vs Practical   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Ernest Prabhakar
• [EM] New (?) Condorcet method: LeastSchwartzBeat[By]   Ernie Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: New (? ) Condorcet method: Schwartz PC   Ernie Prabhakar
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Ernie Prabhakar
• [EM] Blake Cretney's email adress   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Approval strategy from rankings   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Approval strategy from rankings   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Re: bicameral design poll   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Nature of election districts   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Nature of election districts   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Re: PR vs. Geographic Representation   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Re: PR vs. Geographic Representation   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Michael Rouse
• [EM] Calling something by a name that means something else. Justification for PC.   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Condorcet's words   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Algorithm to Calculate the Schwartz Set   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Algorithm to Calculate the Schwartz Set   Markus Schulze
• [EM] PHP Source now posted   Markus Schulze
• [EM] SCRRIRVE; my folly   Markus Schulze
• [EM] David Gamble reply, 1/23/03 1012 GMT   Markus Schulze
• [EM] David Gambld reply, 25/1/04, 0620   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Answering Markus once, to conclude the topic   Markus Schulze
• [EM] The answer: Yes Markus said it again.   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Floyd algorithm?   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Clarifying the definitions   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Letter to Editor on "Instant Runoff Voting" article in Jan 2004 Zmagazine   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Re: Optional Later-no-harm AER   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Approval strategy from rankings   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Re: Testing 1 2 3   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Better Smith Majority Approval   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Forest Simmons
• [EM] (typo in) Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Forest Simmons
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark, re: Approval, CR, & IRV   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Inferring Approval Strategy From Ranked Ballots   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Re: Compactness   Forest Simmons
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Re: Districting Quests: Quixotic vs Practical   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Re: To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Forest Simmons
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Forest Simmons
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Richard was right: The elections are 0-info.   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Lesser-of-2-evils voting   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Gore vs. Bush   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Approval vs. CR (again)   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Lesser-of-2-evils voting   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Inferring Approval Strategy From Ranked Ballots   Forest Simmons
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Forest Simmons
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Forest Simmons
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Approval vs. CR (again)   Forest Simmons
• [EM] An Alternative to Symmetric Completion   Forest Simmons
• [EM] Sincere rankings in the methods comparison test   Alex Small
• [EM] bicameral design poll   Alex Small
• [EM] The Nash Equilibrium method for counting rankings. Other 'player' definition.   Alex Small
• [EM] bicameral design poll   Alex Small
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Alex Small
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   Alex Small
• [EM] Lesser-of-2-evils voting   Alex Small
• [EM] Approval satisfies CC   Alex Small
• [EM] The Nash Equilibrium method for counting rankings. Other "player" definition.   Rob Speer
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Rob Speer
• [EM] Election districts (was bicameral design poll)   Sampo Syreeni
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Yes, SMA does sound like ACC   Adam Tarr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Adam Tarr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Adam Tarr
• [EM] What Mike can teach us   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Approval satisfies CC   Adam Tarr
• PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] Bill Lewis, never re-district]   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - Tounament   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Clarifying the definitions   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Condorcet for public proposals - IMV   Adam Tarr
• [EM] Ossipoff's lost 8 proofs now supplied by Adam Tarr Re: [EM] Clarifying the definitions   Adam Tarr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Adam H Tarr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Adam H Tarr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Adam H Tarr
• [EM] To Bill Lewis Clark re: stepping-stone   Adam H Tarr
• [EM] CR v. AV, IRV &c   Joe Weinstein
• [EM] Compactness   Joe Weinstein
• [EM] Re: Compactness   Joe Weinstein
• [EM] Districting Quests: Quixotic vs Practical   Joe Weinstein
• [EM] Election districts (was bicameral design poll)   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Election districts (was bicameral design poll)   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] (no subject)   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Re: Election redistricting   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Eric Gorr's web site   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Re: Automated districting   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] It's a tie between A & B.   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Advantages of Dirichlet Region Districts   matt@tidalwave.net
• [EM] Symetric Completion equals "falsification"?   james mehigan
• [EM] Approval satisfies CC   wclark@xoom.org
• [EM] Approval satisfies CC   wclark@xoom.org
• [EM] Demonstration that Approval doesn't pass our CC   wclark@xoom.org
• PR vs. Geographic Representation [WAS: RE: [EM] Bill Lewis, never re-district]   wclark@xoom.org
• [EM] Approval vs. CR (again)   wclark@xoom.org
• [EM] Re: Approval vs. CR (again)   wclark@xoom.org
• [EM] You want us to propose methods that fail our criteria & standards?   wclark@xoom.org
• [EM] Bill & our definitions   wclark@xoom.org

Last message date: Sat Jan 31 23:48:02 2004
Archived on: Sat Jan 31 23:48:02 2004

• Messages sorted by: [ thread ] [ subject ] [ date ]
• More info on this list...