At 01:59 PM 3/1/2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>You did not specify a method for the runoff election. There are two
>candidates in the result set I specified; it might itself be the
>runoff. If the method for the runoff cannot be Range Voting, it is
>inappropriate to claim that Range satisfies the M
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:
> At 05:28 PM 2/28/2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>>I suggest you re-read what I wrote. This rambling has nothing to do
>>with what I wrote.
>
> I'm glad. Which is not at all an incentive to reread what Mr. Poole
> wrote I did not intend what I wrote to be a comment
At 05:28 PM 2/28/2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>I suggest you re-read what I wrote. This rambling has nothing to do
>with what I wrote.
I'm glad. Which is not at all an incentive to reread what Mr. Poole
wrote I did not intend what I wrote to be a commentary on his
writing, but simply to be w
Lomax says:
But we should not let this distract us from the fact that utility
analysis is really the *only* approach to judging how well election
methods perform, it is not like we have other methods competing with it.
Election criteria might be considered such methods, but they are
clearly in
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:
> At 07:57 AM 2/28/2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>> > Aggregating utilities, however, is obviously not such a simple thing.
>> > But we should not let this distract us from the fact that utility
>> > analysis is really the *only* approach to judging how well election
>> >
At 07:57 AM 2/28/2007, Michael Poole wrote:
> > Aggregating utilities, however, is obviously not such a simple thing.
> > But we should not let this distract us from the fact that utility
> > analysis is really the *only* approach to judging how well election
> > methods perform, it is not like we
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax writes:
> How to define individual utility in election methods is not
> necessarily a problem: the voter defines it. They system provides a
> means to express such utilities.
>
> Aggregating utilities, however, is obviously not such a simple thing.
> But we should not let th
How to define individual utility in election methods is not
necessarily a problem: the voter defines it. They system provides a
means to express such utilities.
Aggregating utilities, however, is obviously not such a simple thing.
But we should not let this distract us from the fact that utilit
I commend Jobst for his essay [
http://lists.electorama.com/htdig.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com/2007-February/019584.html
] on utilities. It helps clarify some issues about utilities and the
often abused notion of social utilities.
Utility functions are just a way of representing preference
Martin Bailey suggested "maximise the probability of minimising harm" as the
method to combine utility functions into a single social decision.
For something like this to work, there would need to be a reference point as
the question then becomes, "minimise harm relative to what?".
Anywa
Hello folks!
Attention: this is quite a long posting that deals with the fundamental
question of when and how it is possible to define the terms
"individual utility" and "social utility" in a meaningful way.
In particular, I try to make clear when and when not the sum of
individual utility valu
11 matches
Mail list logo