[EM] Re: Condorcet strategy

[Dave Ketchum]

At SOME NOT DISCLOSED TIME Chris Benham wrote:

I say it that way because the time at which he CLAIMED TO HAVE SENT IT has 
not yet occurred:

This is a problem because the best way available to order email such that 
we read it in the order it was written is to order it according to when it 
CLAIMS to have been sent (errors can occur in ALL the times, but the 
detail we have the most control over is our own computer clocks - usually 
best for them to match wall clocks, but being consistent with claimed time 
zone is ok).
      CB claims       Sat, 13:40 UTC:  Sat, 29 May 2004 23:10:13 +0930
      At my ISP ready Sat, 01:40 UTC:  Fri, 28 May 2004 21:40:14 -0400
      Read by me      Sat, 07:44 UTC:  Sat May 29 03:44:55 2004

> CF,
> You  wrote (Fri.May 28):
> 
>> As far as finding a time share goes, here's what I had in mind: Divide 
>> each
>> term into sub-terms of equal length (say, six months).  For X and Y, if X
>> wins by Schulze, and Y is the candidate who, apart from X, loses the 
>> fewest
>> comparisons of the strongest beatpaths, X and Y are the winners of the
>> election.  For X and Y, if X and Y are winners, use the strength of the
>> beatpath from X to Y and the strength of the beatpath from Y to X as 
>> input,
>> and use the Sainte-Lague formula to allocate the sub-terms.
>>
> Surely sharing up the time between the top-cycle candidates is the same 
> sort of problem as sharing voting power
> between proxies, nothing complicated. Each ballot contributes one vote 
> to the single top-cycle candidate it ranks
> above the others, or equal fractions of a vote that sum to 1 to each of 
> the top-cycle candidates it votes in equal
> place above the others.  Then the time in office for each of these 
> top-cycle  (or Shwartz set) candidates is allocated
> in proportion to these tallies.


In one sense this time sharing is COMPLETELY different from weighted 
voting power:

Weighted voting is mostly a difference in election methods, from what is 
mostly current.  Big deal I see is that access to debating time needs to 
be restricted for those with very weak voting power (if the election 
method permits giving one rep 1/100 of the voting power of another - 
almost certainly destructive for them to have equal power in debating).
      This easily extends to larger districts each electing several reps.

Time sharing means one elected rep has no power during some part of the 
term - needs a lot of thought outside of what is normally election methods 
business.  Perhaps one could be in power while considering taxes; another 
while considering spending?

> 
> Chris  Benham

-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.