On 1/22/07, Jan Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Converting Range to Approval, though, requires the specification of
> > an Approval cutoff. Various cutoffs have been proposed. 50% is the
> > obvious simplest one. This gets a lot clea
At 08:38 AM 1/22/2007, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>How would we vote on how to vote, if we don't use the most recent method
>that won?
Yes/No votes don't require advanced election methods. Approval is
unnecessary when we are voting Yes/No on a question. (Since
overvoting the two possibilities is e
At 08:38 AM 1/22/2007, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>Yes, it was years ago when Approval won here. But it's all we have to go on.
>How would we vote on how to vote, if we don't use the most recent method
>that won? The only other alternative, which I have nothing against, would be
>to use "Voter's Choic
At 04:53 AM 1/22/2007, Jan Kok wrote:
>On 1/21/07, Michael Ossipoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How to vote? Range-Voting is ok for public elections, but it's no
> good here,
> > because strategizers will take advantage of sincere voters. The purpose,
> > here, of RV would be to aggregate sin
Jan--
You wrote:
ike, you're kidding, right?
Not at all.
You continue:
On the ELECTION-METHODS mailing list, you
think there would be people who would vote honestly, using less than
the full range available, who would not realize that they would be
giving up some voting power if they did tha
On 1/21/07, Michael Ossipoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How to vote? Range-Voting is ok for public elections, but it's no good here,
> because strategizers will take advantage of sincere voters. The purpose,
> here, of RV would be to aggregate sincere ratings. But we won't be getting
> sincere r
At 08:29 AM 1/21/2007, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>I agree with the majority, who feel that we don't need Robert's Rules.
We have never established that. Nor has anyone proposed Robert's
Rules here. If it were proposed we could consider it. It was proposed
at one time that formal process be used in
By being the "bad-guy" again, as always, I caused a discussioni on how to
deal with bad guys, which led into a meeting-procedure discussion.
Though I'm the bad-guy, I'd like to add a few comments.
I agree with the majority, who feel that we don't need Robert's Rules. We
could devise a simple, m
