> Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:52:05 -0400 > From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [EM] election-methods Digest, Vol 34, Issue 22
> At 05:12 PM 4/20/2007, Howard Swerdfeger wrote: > >I disagree: > >Imagine a classical 2D political spectrum: > >http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:2d_political_spectrum.png > > > >with 1 voter in the middle (0,0) and 3 candidates > >Candidate A is at (0, 1) > >Candidate B is at (0, -1.1) > >Candidate C is at (0.5, 1) > > > >If the voter votes for the candidate closest to them on the political > >spectrum there preference would be > >A > B > C > > > >But if A is allowed to transfer my votes he would choose the one closest > >to Them IE C. > > What Swerdfeger is pointing to is nothing more than the obvious. The > first preference of my first preference is not necessarily my second > preference. You don't need math to see that! I'm not voting for a > clone of myself, but for someone I trust. I don't see any problem in applying the spectrum idea to trustworthiness. Each dimension could represent some aspect(s) of trustworthiness of each candidate. A very simple example could be one dimension represents trustworthiness on health services while the other dimension represents trustworthiness on economic matters. A physician and economist would fit easily into this example. Thanks, Gervase. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
