Forum wide moderators
@toby-pereira said in General stuff about approval/cardinal PR:
This project hasn't purely been altruistic - it's been helpful to me by laying everything out for reworking my COWPEA paper!
And the new version can be seen here (as I mentioned in the separate COWPEA thread anyway).
The paper has been updated and some errors corrected.
Thank you both for keeping an eye on this and deleting the spam. If you have suggestions for the settings I'm open to whatever seems like the best option. I don't have strong opinions either way as long as people like you both are taking care of it if it does occur.
If that wasn't the case I'd say we should look into other options.
I've just learnt from Rob Lanphier on the election methods mailing list of the death of Jameson Quinn after an accident while hiking in Guatemala. This is very sad news and a lot of you will be familiar with Jameson from his contributions to the voting method community over many years. I used to communicate with him about cardinal proportional methods and he's the only person from the community that I've ever met in person, back in 2017 I think.
Rob's original message can be seen here and the message from his mother posting the news is here.
I discussed something similar here and there's a video here as well. There's a video as well which shows a potential ballot design.
In what I discussed the top voted candidate in each district was automatically elected in the first phase.
@matija Do you need the first step about the electing the candidate with most votes in each district but only if they have a Hare quota? You could just do the whole process using the PR system. Or just elect the candidate with most votes anyway and just use the PR system for the second ones to be elected.
@matija True. If individual ballot data can be used, then the funding that results from each could be split equally across the candidates approved on that ballot. But this still might not be very satisfactory.
@matija If public funding is proportional to votes, then I'd say it's easier with approval voting than ranks. With ranks, you could use top votes as you say, but then you might give less funding to the election winner (by IRV, Condorcet or whatever).
@cfrank I've seen a few as well which I've deleted, but they're not overwhelming the board or anything, so I wouldn't want to make anything worse for any new users we might get, which isn't that many anyway! So I'd probably say leave it for now, but keep an eye on the situation.
@cfrank Yes. I think parties have their place as it makes it easier to know what someone is standing for in some cases and can simplify the process for voters, but I don't think they should form an essential part of the process, and it should be just as possible for independent candidates to stand.
