> > Do I have to try to explain why you believe that there's a genuine > > objective > > absolute best candidate? Obviously that belief of yours has great > > influence on your standards, since your main standard is finding which > > candidate is most likely to be that genuine objective absolute best.
> > I don't know why you believe that. > >But you would agree that either there is, or there isn't an absolute >best candidate, even though we don't agree on which one is the case. A >standard based on finding this candidate makes sense only if there is an >absolute best candidate to be found. So, in fact, there is, at least in >this case a way of judging standards that is based on objective truth. When I listen to both of you, you do make sense. There is (at least one) an absolute best candidate, but it sometimes lead to a high under representation of the electorate will. Maybe an election should be more considered as a representation exercise and not a sport game. So finding the best scores to each candidate could be more efficient than just identifying the winner. I believe the best representative set does not include only winners, not even all the winners... Stéphane Rouillon.