At 01:57 AM 6/8/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:32:55 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>[...]
>
>Your words show there are TWO views of complexity:
> Ranked choice (IRV and Condorcet) have ballots that are messy
> to count by hand - but we can program computers to do the wor
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:32:55 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 02:37 AM 6/7/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
>> Is this trip necessary?
>
>
> Yes. At least as necessary as any discussion of ideal election methods,
> actual election methods, and possible intermediary steps.
>
>> I claim not, fo
At 02:37 AM 6/7/2006, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>Is this trip necessary?
Yes. At least as necessary as any discussion of ideal election
methods, actual election methods, and possible intermediary steps.
>I claim not, for it is not up to competing with Condorcet - or even IRV,
>which usually gets the r
Is this trip necessary?
I claim not, for it is not up to competing with Condorcet - or even IRV,
which usually gets the right victor.
Approval still has a basic weakness. Easy enough for Approval to be told
acceptable vs unacceptable, but Approval has no way, even in this
variation, for me to
I find this staging of polling for Approval interesting. It does
allow for substantial refinement of voter understanding of the
situation prior to casting their votes. It would also be exciting to watch.
The hardest part to sell would be, however, the random selection of
stage to determine
It's pretty obvious that under Approval you should approve your favorite
candidate, and that you should leave unapproved the candidate that you despise
the most. But it isn't always so obvious which of the remaining candidates to
approve.
A rule of thumb is to approve the candidate that you w
