April 2005 Archives by author

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

Starting: Fri Apr 1 00:12:51 PST 2005
Ending: Sat Apr 30 22:55:25 PDT 2005
Messages: 336

• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice, AWP, AM   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: summary answers   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Equivalent defeat strength for Approval Sorted Margins / Approval Margins   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Ballot Design   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: RAV/DMC   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Optimally Sorted Pairwise Methods (AWP/ASM/AM/CWP)   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Letter to author of voting system article   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] "one-line" definition of ASM/AM/AWP   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: More thoughts on approval margins   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: AWP versus DMC and AM   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Election-methods Digest, Vol 10, Issue 34   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: A few compliances & noncompliances of DMC   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] "Be careful what you wish for"   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: auto-truncation   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: "Be careful what you wish for"   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: auto-truncation   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Cardinal Pairwise: Guilty till proven innocent   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: wv & Cardinal Pairwise fail Participation and Consistency.   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: wv & Cardinal Pairwise fail Participation and Consistency.   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] parties working to throw out top-two primary in Washington State   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: parties working to throw out top-two primary in Washington State   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: parties working to throw out top-two primary in Washington State   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Reply to A. A. about sloppy quoting   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Generic Name for the "Gerald Ford" candidate   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: Generic Name for the "Gerald Ford" candidate   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] Re: AWP versus DMC and AM   Araucaria Araucana
• [EM] summary of Condorcet anti-strategy measures   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice, AWP, AM   Chris Benham
• [EM] summary of Condorcet anti-strategy measures   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Chris Benham
• [EM] AWP versus AM (was "summary of Condorcet anti-strategy measures")   Chris Benham
• [EM]Re: AWP versus AM (and DMC)   Chris Benham
• [EM]Re: Normative criteria   Chris Benham
• [EM] Re: realization on method equivalence   Chris Benham
• [EM]Re: AWP versus AM (and DMC)   Chris Benham
• [EM]Re: AWP versus AM (and DMC) oops!   Chris Benham
• [EM]Re: AWP versus AM (and DMC) oops!   Chris Benham
• [EM]Re: AWP versus AM (and DMC)   Chris Benham
• [EM] " Weak Burial Resistance" criterion   Chris Benham
• [EM] AWP versus DMC and AM   Chris Benham
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   Daniel Bishop
• [EM] Ballot Design   Lloyd Caesar
• "Best" candidates, and Social Orderings (was: [EM] Sincere methods)   Steve Eppley
• [EM] Ballot Design   James Gilmour
• [EM] Ranked Pairs tiebreaker scheme   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Ranked Pairs tiebreaker scheme   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Sincere methods   Eric Gorr
• [EM] Re: Letter to author of voting system article   Eric Gorr
• [EM] summary of Condorcet anti-strategy measures   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: "weak & strong preferences", Steve Eppley EM post , 5 Mar.1997   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Sincere methods   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice, AWP, AM   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] CWO may be worth fighting for   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] James--Majority rule definition, 29 March, 0632 GMT   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: Conversations with people new to voting systems   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] James: Strategy definitions and criteria, 29 March, 0521 GMT   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] summary of Condorcet anti-strategy measures   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] clarification of last post   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] summary answers   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] AWP versus AM (was "summary of Condorcet anti-strategy measures")   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Mike: majority rule   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Mike: strategy (brief)   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice, AWP, AM   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] The result of offensive strategy isn't different. Kiss your paradigm goo   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice, AWP, AM   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Therefore offensive order-reversal in wv won't look worse than Plurality   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] typo   James Green-Armytage
• [EM]Re: AWP versus AM (and DMC)   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Mike: what exactly are we arguing about?   James Green-Armytage
• [EM]Re: AWP versus AM (and DMC)   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Mike: strategy   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] James--Your example shows that my claim wasn't correct   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] AWP versus DMC and AM   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Juho: strategy   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] James, your 6-candidate example   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] new definitions and criteria page   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Approval, Pareto, & ICC   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Markus, immune set   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Dueling immune set definitions   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] direct democracy   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] repetition   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] IRV questions...   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Letter to author of voting system article   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] James--Choice voting article   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] James--Strategy, part 1   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Mike: misunderstanding   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] guilty until proven innocent   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: Juho: strategy   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] correction   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Cardinal Pairwise: Guilty till proven innocent   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Mike: self-contradiction   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] Re: Self-contradiction   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] burden of doubt and IRV/Condorcet politics   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] approval doesn't meaningfully meet majority or mutual majority   James Green-Armytage
• [EM] summary answers   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] summary answers   Jobst Heitzig
• "Best" candidates, and Social Orderings (was: [EM] Sincere methods)   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] Democratic Fair Choice and the set P   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] Sincere methods   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] Collecting Ordinal Information   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] LNHarm and ATLO   Jobst Heitzig
• [EM] Re: IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   Bart Ingles
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Siimpson-Kramer definition   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Re: Letter to author of voting system article   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Re: Simpson-Kramer definition   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] BC, BeatpathWinner   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] James, 4/22/'05, 0220 GMT   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Re: parties working to throw out top-two primary in Washington State   Paul Kislanko
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• "Best" candidates, and Social Orderings (was: [EM] Sincere methods)   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Mailing problems   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Re: Juho: strategy   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Re: Juho: strategy   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Groupings, alliances, friendly relationships   Juho Laatu
• [EM] Sincere methods   Juho Laatu
• [EM] pSTV v0.7   Jeffrey O'Neill
• [EM] Re: Schulze's method is BeatpathWinner   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Contd: Why CW maximizes SU   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Statement left out   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Schulze's method isn't BeatpathWinner   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Schulze's method isn't BeatpathWinner   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Minor typo in "Schulze's method isn't BeatpathWinner"   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Conversations with people new to voting systems   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, 4 April, '05, 0400   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Summary Answers   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, 5 April, '05, 0645 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] (no subject)   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: A majority rule definition based on the Smith set   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: A majority rule definition based on the Smith set   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Objections to majority   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Objections to majority   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Russ, 4/6/05, 2232   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Sorry, posted it twice   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Euclidean distance typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Kevin, 8 April, '05, 0533 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] About the demonstration that Plurality fails PSBC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] 1 example in which Plurality fails all the defensive strategy criteria   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, 9 April, 2355 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] The result of offensive strategy isn't different. Kiss your paradigm goodbye.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Kiss your paradigm goodbye   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Therefore offensive order-reversal in wv won't look worse than Plurality   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] I'm not going to waste more time replying to Russ   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Normative criteria   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] A proposal from a member of the public   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Normative criteria   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, defensive strategy need, CW loss, majority wishes violations   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, 4/11/05, 2227   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Russ, 12 April, '05, 0530 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Letter to an author of a voting system article   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Mike, what are we arguing about?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Mike's Mistake, part 2   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] No, James, I don't refer to Simpson-Kramer as Plain Condorcet   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Siimpson-Kramer definition   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Letter to author of voting system article   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Simpson-Kramer definition   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James--Your example shows that my claim wasn't correct   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] A few compliances & noncompliances of DMC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] minmax   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] The idle and the working poor   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] minmax   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Kevin-- ATLO & LNC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, your 6-candidate example   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] (no subject)   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: James, your 6-candidate example   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] NPR   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] typo regarding FAIR and _Extra!_   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Approval, Pareto, & ICC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: ATLO, defection, method/criterion model   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] contd, your method proposals   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Markus, immune set   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Dueling immune set definitions   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Beatpath Criterion   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: ATLO, defection, method/criterion model   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] BC, BeatpathWinner   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, 4/22/'05, 0220 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Typo regarding day of month   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Markus, BC   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Paul, 23 April, '05, 0250 GMT   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, Preference Pareto   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Contd, comments on your methods   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James--Choice voting article   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James--Strategy, part 1   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Contd, method proposals   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] nkklrp at hotmail.com   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Odd accidental posting   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Mike: Misunderstanding   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Cardinal Pairwise: Guilty till proven innocent   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James, reply to strategy reply (not to your original Mike: Strategy posting)   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] wv & Cardinal Pairwise fail Participation and Consistency.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Reply to A. A. about sloppy quoting   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Cardinal Pairwise: Guilty till proven innocent   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] typo in contrived ad-hoc Preference Majority Criterion   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Final Improved Preference Majority Criterion   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Self-contradiction   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Preference criteria vs votes-only (was " CP: guilty till proven innocent")   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Ted reply   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Guilty till proven innocent, seriously mis-applied   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] One more thing about "Guilty till proven innocent"   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Kevin, co-operation/defection game of chicken. SDSC.   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Plurality advantage or FHC malfunction?   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] typo   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Self-contradiction   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] James--The burden of doubt, part 1   MIKE OSSIPOFF
• [EM] Re: Conversations with people new to voting systems   Russ Paielli
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Definite Majority Choice   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Objections to majority   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Russ, 4/6/05, 2232   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice, AWP, AM   Russ Paielli
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   Russ Paielli
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   Russ Paielli
• [EM] I'm not going to waste more time replying to Russ   Russ Paielli
• [EM] let Mike Ossipoff know what you think about his lies   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Mike's "mistake"   Russ Paielli
• [EM] realization on method equivalence   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Mike's mistake, part 2   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: fallacy   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Collecting Ordinal Information   Russ Paielli
• [EM] RE: Election-methods Digest, Vol 10, Issue 30   Russ Paielli
• [EM] relationship between DMC/RAV and Approval   Russ Paielli
• [EM] why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   Russ Paielli
• [EM] RE: Election-methods Digest, Vol 10, Issue 34   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: Election-methods Digest, Vol 10, Issue 34   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: IRV bill on Washington State Governor's desk   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: why ranking should be allowed for approved candidates only   Russ Paielli
• [EM] auto-truncation   Russ Paielli
• [EM] "Be careful what you wish for"   Russ Paielli
• [EM] RE: auto truncation   Russ Paielli
• [EM] absentee ballots and GVI colors   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: parties working to throw out top-two primary in Washington State   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Re: parties working to throw out top-two primary in Washington State   Russ Paielli
• [EM] Equivalent defeat strength for Approval Sorted Margins / Approval Margins   Monkey Puzzle
• [EM] More thoughts on approval margins   Monkey Puzzle
• [EM] STV anomaly - Part of my vote went to someone who was not on my list   Jim & Mary Ronback
• [EM] Re: [stv-voting] STV anomaly - Part of my vote went to someone who was not on my li   Colin Rosenstiel
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   Stephane Rouillon
• [EM] A question in classroom creation   Michael A. Rouse
• [EM] Schulze's method is BeatpathWinner   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Schulze's method is BeatpathWinner   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Simpson-Kramer definition   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Simpson-Kramer definition   Markus Schulze
• [EM] contd, your method proposals   Markus Schulze
• [EM] contd, your method proposals   Markus Schulze
• [EM] Letter to author of voting system article   Markus Schulze
• [EM] summary answers   Curt Siffert
• [EM] Siimpson-Kramer definition   Curt Siffert
• [EM] summary answers   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] RE: Equivalent defeat strength for Approval Sorted Margins / Approval Margins   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] Re: Definite Majority Choice   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] Democratic Fair Choice and the set P   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] Collecting Ordinal Information   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] Re: Collecting Ordinal Information   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] RE: Election-methods Digest, Vol 10, Issue 30   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] RE: Election-methods Digest, Vol 10, Issue 34   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] RE: auto truncation   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] Generic Name for the "Gerald Ford" candidate   Simmons, Forest
• [EM] Ranked Pairs tiebreaker scheme   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Ranked Pairs tiebreaker scheme   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Sincere methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Sincere methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Kevin, 8 April, '05, 0533 GMT   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] a majority rule definition based on the Smith set   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] RAV/DMC (was "majorities and ordinal-only pairwise methods")   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Re: RAV/DMC   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Sincere methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Siimpson-Kramer definition   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] LNHarm and ATLO   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] LNHarm and ATLO   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] minmax   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Sincere methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Kevin-- ATLO & LNHarm   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] relationship between DMC/RAV and Approval   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Sincere methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] ATLO, defection, MD, method/criterion model   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] new definitions and criteria page   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Re: ATLO, defection, method/criterion model   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] contd, your method proposals   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Re: ATLO, defection, method/criterion model   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Re: Contd, comments on your methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Re: Contd, method proposals   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Re: auto-truncation   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Sincere methods   Kevin Venzke
• [EM] Re: Letter to an author of a voting system article   RLSuter at aol.com

Last message date: Sat Apr 30 22:55:25 PDT 2005
Archived on: Sun Jun 29 22:32:00 PDT 2014

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