headers
MIKE OSSIPOFF | 1 Feb 2003 02:21
Picon
Favicon

Markus: Marquette


Markus--

You wrote:

I guess that you still have access to the same copy of
"Proportional Representation" by Hoag and Hallett where
you have read about Nanson in Wisconsin.

I reply:

Actually that copy is no longer available.

You continued:

When you re-read
this copy, does it still mention Marquette, Wisconsin?

I reply:

Though I haven't had an opportunity to re-read the copy, I'm certain
that it still says what it said before. However, it's possible that
I somehow inexplicably mistakenly believed that it said Wisconsin
when it actually said Michigan.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Olli Salmi | 1 Feb 2003 11:55
Picon

Re: "population paradox" using largest remainder with small # of voters?

I hve this example on my page (in Finnish) at the end of the chapter on
Hare-Niemeyer. Probably not close enough for you.

19 seats
550, 470, 250, 160
7, 6, 4, 2 (7,31; 6,24; 3,32; 2,13).

550, 470, 250, 150
8, 6, 3, 2 (7,36; 6,29; 3,35; 2,01)
http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~olsalmi/vaalit/vaalimat.html

Olli Salmi

>The parameters are as follows: the regional tournament has 16 teams - this
>is fixed.  Realistically, most sections will have between 3 and 20 teams,
>with some approaching 25 or so.  6-14 or so is be the most common
>range.  Every section is guaranteed at least one bid to the regional
>tournament, provided they have at least one team, so no example should
>conclude that a section gets zero bids.  Every region has either three or
>four sections.
>
>Given these parameters (three or four "parties", between three and twenty
>"voters" in each party, sixteen "seats" in the house), can anyone come up
>with an example of the population paradox playing out?  Barring the
>presence of such an example, all I can do is show a case where the results
>differ from Webster's method, and try to argue that it's less proportional
>as a result.  But this is a lot less convincing.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Adam Tarr | 1 Feb 2003 18:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: "population paradox" using largest remainder with small # of voters?

Nope, not close enough, but it gives me some new ideas on scenarios to look 
for.  Thanks.

-Adam

At 12:55 PM 2/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>I hve this example on my page (in Finnish) at the end of the chapter on
>Hare-Niemeyer. Probably not close enough for you.
>
>19 seats
>550, 470, 250, 160
>7, 6, 4, 2 (7,31; 6,24; 3,32; 2,13).
>
>550, 470, 250, 150
>8, 6, 3, 2 (7,36; 6,29; 3,35; 2,01)
>http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~olsalmi/vaalit/vaalimat.html
>
>
>Olli Salmi
>
>
> >The parameters are as follows: the regional tournament has 16 teams - this
> >is fixed.  Realistically, most sections will have between 3 and 20 teams,
> >with some approaching 25 or so.  6-14 or so is be the most common
> >range.  Every section is guaranteed at least one bid to the regional
> >tournament, provided they have at least one team, so no example should
> >conclude that a section gets zero bids.  Every region has either three or
> >four sections.
> >
> >Given these parameters (three or four "parties", between three and twenty
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
ericgorr | 1 Feb 2003 19:41
Picon

My Voting Site - updated

Made a couple of changes to my voting site with respect to input and 
Ranked Pairs.

One can now enter ballots of the like 10:0>1>2

Also, considering the computational requirements of RP, I rewrote it 
in C++. It should easily compile under any standard C++ compiler. 
Feel free to take a look at the code at:

   http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/main.cpp

and let me know if you spot any mistakes (but, things seem to be working).

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
MIKE OSSIPOFF | 2 Feb 2003 08:42
Picon
Favicon

The interactive BeatpathWinner & RP count website


Eric Gore's interactive count programs for Ranked-Pairs &
BeatpathWinner, at http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/index.php
are the only such programs that I've heard of that take rankings
as input, and which measure defeats by winning-votes, the defeat
measure that protects majority rule and minimizes defensive strategy
need, as measured by the criteria at the websites listed below.

Right now is an exciting epoch in voting system websites:
The Americans for Approval Voting and Citizens for Approval Voting
organizations have just been launched, and now we have a website that
interactively counts Ranked-Pairs and BeatpathWinner, taking
rankings as input, and using winning-votes.

The Approval organization websites are:

http://www.ApprovalVoting.com

and

http://www.ApprovalVoting.org

One is an educational organization, and the other will be an
organization to work for enactment of Approval.

The websites with voting system criteria that I referred to above are:

http://www.electionmethods.org
   (at the technical evaluation page)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
ericgorr | 2 Feb 2003 19:13
Picon

Re: The interactive BeatpathWinner & RP count website

>Eric Gorr's interactive count programs for Ranked-Pairs &
>BeatpathWinner, at http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/index.php
>are the only such programs that I've heard of that take rankings
>as input, and which measure defeats by winning-votes, the defeat
>measure that protects majority rule and minimizes defensive strategy
>need, as measured by the criteria at the websites listed below.

Thanks Mike.

Btw, the main.cpp file that was first there was my first pass at the 
code. The real one is now up 
(http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/main.cpp). I would appreciate it 
if people could take a look and see if the spot any errors, but 
again, everything seems to be working. Feel free to suggest "clean" 
ways to improve the code as well.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
matt matt | 2 Feb 2003 20:22

Re: The interactive BeatpathWinner & RP count website

The Condorcet_DD PERL script found at
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=48126 has line commands that also produce
Mike's preferred outcome.  First run the ballot2tally.pl script with the --nonvoted_last and
--zero_equalrank commands to generate the Condorcet tally matrix from a voted ballots list and then run
the Condorcet_DD.pl with the --rank_wv command.  It has line commands to request RP and BeatpathWSinner
(SSD) outcomes.

Mr. Mike Ossipoff wrote:

"Eric Gore's interactive count programs for Ranked-Pairs &
BeatpathWinner, at http://www.ericgorr.net/condorcet/index.php
are the only such programs that I've heard of that take rankings
as input, and which measure defeats by winning-votes, the defeat
measure that protects majority rule and minimizes defensive strategy need, as measured by the criteria at
the websites listed below."

________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at tidalwave.net

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Narins, Josh | 3 Feb 2003 19:32

[OT] Computerized Counting


Hagel owns and operates the machines that counted his votes in Nebraska.

There's lots more, too.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm
<http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm> 
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/ <http://www.blackboxvoting.com/> 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named
above.  If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review,
dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  This communication is
for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer
to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of
Lehman Brothers.  Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.  Therefore, we do
not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such.  All
information is subject to change without notice.

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joe Weinstein | 4 Feb 2003 02:28
Picon
Favicon

Re: Population paradox

If I am not mistaken, Adam's 'Population paradox' has a venerable history in 
apportionment of the US House of Representatives, where at one point it was 
known as the 'Alabama paradox'  (In 1840 or so, Alabama gained a larger 
proportion of the population, yet lost a seat.)  It took a long while, but 
this paradox was a major impetus finally leading in the early 20th century 
to systematic 'scientific' house apportionment per Huntington.  However, and 
please someone correct me, as far as I know none of the usual methods used 
or considered by the House (Webster, Hamilton, Jefferson - AND latterly 
Huntington) really reliably solve the 'population' paradox.  To ensure a 
solution, you must deliberately design for 'population' consistency, or 
'monotonicity', as for instance is done by the so-called 'quota method' of 
Balinski and Young.  [By the way, though I no longer have the exact 
reference conveniently at hand, their paper in the Amer Math Monthly - late 
70s, I believe - was one of the few that really got me interested 
academically in election methods.]

Joe Weinstein   Long Beach CA USA

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Narins, Josh | 4 Feb 2003 14:53

RE: Population paradox

Joe,
`	I thought I'd mention this a few times :)

	Huntington is no longer used, the "Method of Equal Proportions" is.

	(simple explanation of method:
	Step 1. each state gets 1 rep (by constitution, doesn't change
results)
	Each "Step" after this involves giving away 1 seat. The seat goes to
the
	State with the highest priority. Priority = (Population/Number of
Seats so far)

	I've looked at the issue, and, other than one tidbit, MEP is by far
the fairest.
	The only issue is the overall standard deviation between district
sizes can sometimes be helped by _REDUCING_ the number of seats. FOr
instance, at the last Apportionment (2000). Although 435 seats were given
out, if only 432 had been, the standard deviation of district sizes would
have been smaller.

	Montana keeps getting hosed, though, and they always will be with
MEP (unless population trends change, and fairly dramatically).

	the MEP was adopted in 1941. Congress asked the National Academy of
Sciences to investigate which method would be best in 1929.  The problem
arose because in 1913, Congress capped the total number of apportioned
representatives at 435.

	I recommend looking up the Congressional record for the 1941 session
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane