--- Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit�: > Also seems to me that "low-utility candidate" gets misused: > ABC says that this voter assigns most utility to A and something > less - perhaps negative - to C. Voter has placed B between - PERHAPS > almost as positive as A; PERHAPS almost as negative as C. > Looking at the initial estimates above, A and C could perhaps be > rated as low-utility with some voters rating A or C as high-utility and > others giving each the opposite rating. B could possibly be rated as > moderate-utility, for noone has assigned B last choice.
If you don't think "utility" is a useful idea, you should just say that, rather than redefine it to mean what no one else is talking about. In the scenario this involves, A and C ON AVERAGE had quite a bit more utility (almost 50) than B (over 15). That "no one has assigned B last choice" is completely irrelevant to utility. It's not about relative preference. It is obvious that the A and C supporters would have to agree that B is low-utility for them to have any agreement. They don't have to agree that B is the worst. ___________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en fran�ais ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
