On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 02:58:54 +0200 (CEST) Kevin Venzke wrote:

--- 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.

So utility has SOME KIND of value which i have demonstrated I do not understand. How about letting me in on the secret.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.


----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Reply via email to