On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:23:38 -0800 CLAY SHENTRUP wrote: > On Dec 29, 2007 1:40 AM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>i don't know why we're still talking about ranked methods in this >>>day and age. >> >>Simply since many if not most experts seem to feel that they are good >>if not best (for typical political single-winner elections). > > > well, they're not. and most of the experts i'm aware of (e.g. > smith,brams) are aware of this. > > >>This mail stream is about joining forces in defending all the good methods. > Proper goal is finding one we can agree to promote - sounding impractical to agree on and therefore unlikely to succeed. > > well, "good" is relative. combining utility efficiency with > simplicity/practicality, range and approval are unparalled. so why > would we want to spend time defending worse and/or more complex > methods? > Your enthusiasm for Approval continues to puzzle. How could many voters find its inability to give backing to more than one, while flagging one as best, acceptable?
As to Range, I simply note my preference for Condorcet. > >>I have no problem in forming also a joint team for >>supporting both rating and ranking based methods. But in this case >>I'd like to make it clear for what purpose and environment each >>method is good for. > > > i do not know of any environment where rankings are better than ratings. > ... > >>As a general rule I'd recommend >>all voters to use votes of same strength (one man one vote is a good >>basic rule in competitive democratic decision making). > > > that is a bad recommendation, since it implies condorcet voting (the > only method where every voter has the same strength), which is nowhere > near as utilitarian as range voting. Debatable. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.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