2011/7/8 Dave Ketchum <da...@clarityconnect.com> > On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > I'm sorry, but aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh. > > I think that people on this list are smart, but this is pathetic. I don't > mean to be hard on Dave in particular. But why is it impossible to get any > two of us to agree on anything? I want to make a list of systems which are > >
> 1. Commonly agreed to be better than approval. > > Oops, I meant plurality. > > > > We pretty much agree that approval is a step up from plurality - but most > of us agree that we want a bigger step - but have trouble agreeing how to do > that. > It's not an irrevocable choice, it's just an endorsement. It would be great news if ANY good system were tried in a real, high-stakes single-winner election. > > > > . SODA - for trying, but seems too complex. >> > > I disagree, but I'm biased. I feel that "approve any number of candidates > or let your favorite candidate do it for you; most approvals wins" is easy > to understand. But I can understand if people disagree, so I'm not > criticizing this logic. > > > Your favorite candidate for, hopefully, getting elected is not necessarily > one you would trust toward getting a good substitute elected. > > Agreed, although they would be worth trusting more often than not. But the point of SODA is that it's optional; if you don't trust them, don't delegate to them. > > >> . Reject Approval - too weak to compete. >> > > Worse than plurality???????? > > > No - but we should be trying for something better. > Sure, try for the best. But support everything better than what we have. Because no system will ever be a consensus best, but many systems are consensus better. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
