[Discuss] Testing needed -- Javascript coder wanted for just onepage

[Stephen Pollei]

On 5/1/07, Alan Beaird <thatdarndawg at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I like that Ideal myself but you would have to get it approved by tom.
Neither Tom's nor Instant Run-off is ideal from a game theory
mathematical point of view.

http://slashdot.org/~joe_plastic/journal/83334 is a journal entry from
September 10 .
I pointed out that IRV has problems  and I advocate Condorcet with
Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping (CSSD) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_Method

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Scholars of
electoral systems often compare them using mathematically-defined
voting system criteria. IRV passes the majority criterion, the mutual
majority criterion, the Condorcet loser criterion and, if the right
tie-breaker method is used, the independence of clones criterion. IRV
fails the monotonicity criterion, the consistency criterion, the
Condorcet criterion, the participation criterion, reversal symmetry
and the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system_criterion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard-Satterthwaite_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_irrelevant_alternatives

Ideal depends on your definition and priority of different trade-offs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggan-Schwartz_theorem doesn't really
fit these circumstances but is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method The Schulze method is a
voting system developed in 1997 by Markus Schulze that selects a
single winner using votes that express preferences. The method can
also be used to create a sorted list of winners. The Schulze method is
also known as Schwartz Sequential Dropping (SSD), Cloneproof Schwartz
Sequential Dropping (CSSD), Beatpath Method, Beatpath Winner, Path
Voting, and Path Winner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count battlemaster is currently
running a modified version of this. Tom's suggestion of allowing the
voter to choose how to spend his points would in theory devolve it
into a plurality system.
A form of the Borda count was one of the voting methods employed in
the Roman Senate beginning around the year 105. While Condorcet was
sometime between 1743 and 1794;
Schwartz Sequential Dropping seems to be much more recent method 1997.
so Borda is more historically accurate; maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

> Right now what you guuys have done so far looks real good.  I asked tom if
> he wanted to keep the voting page with teh other stats ion the present page
> and he said no he wants it on a separate page so what you have now is good
> but need to be split up into two pages.

OK I can rip out the other things and try solving the way it looks
under msie6 and msie7. It has to do with the center tag. It should
look exactly like the old page did. I haven't altered that html. I got
further along with the msie7 problem, but now
⋘The java error is gone. However, it doesn't work. The drop downs
appear, but they are very narrow, and no names appear.⋙
I was given a screen-shot. I still need to work on Opera problem as well.

> Also he stated that he would like to see some images like a star or I should
> say 5 stars each equally a different amount of voting points and if you
> click on the third one say then you give that person 3 votes or 15 if you
> have a total of 25 votes due to your status in the realm.
>
> that is the slider bar effect he mentioned.

People would just spend as many points for their favorite choice;
devolves into simpler scheme. complexity of design without benefit.

>

Jeff Wilson <jjwilson61 at cox.net> 	wrote

> Personally, I prefer Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) where you get to rank your
> choices and the voting proceeds in rounds where if no one gets over 50%, the
> candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the votes of the people
> voting for him are redistributed according to their second choices, etc.
> etc.  It simulates having an arbitrary number of runoffs until someone gets
> over 50%.