P.S. Below I should have said that Nader would be a Condorcet winner or winner in Condorcet methods etc.
--- On Sat, 6/6/09, Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > From: Juho Laatu <juho4...@yahoo.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [EM] Some myths about voting methods > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Date: Saturday, 6 June, 2009, 10:51 AM > > --- On Fri, 5/6/09, Warren Smith <warren....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Now consider tactics. > > > In contrast, with > > preferential ballot, the > > number of possible > > exaggerated-tactical-style votes is > > {Dem > Nader > Repub} > > and {Repub > Nader > Dem} > > which is only 2 options. > > Do you have an exact definition for > what votes are acceptable as > sensible(?) rank-order votes here? > > Note also that this voting style is > insane in the sense that if we get > 50:D>N>R 50:R>N>D then one vote to > Nader would make him the winner > (even if all others would find him > least preferred). > > > > This discussion was mainly about the > amount of information that different > votes carry. Note however that the > meaning of the vote is already a > different story. Range votes are > richer than rank-order votes in the > sense that A>B could be A=9 B=8 or > A=9 B=7. But on the other hand vote > A>B>C where the voter expresses > maximum preference on "A>B" and "B>C" > at the same time can not be expressed > in Range. > > Juho > > > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info