At 03:40 AM 12/11/2005, rob brown wrote:
>On 12/10/05, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>There is an assumption on the part of some EM people that recommended
>voting strategy is that course of action which will maximize the
>possibility of election of one's favorite, or, if not that, then
>one's next
On 12/10/05, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 04:33 PM 12/9/2005, rob brown wrote:>BTW, I'm still waiting for your response my description of how range>voting is subject to vote splitting, and about how Duvergers law>would apply to Range just as it would plurality. (in particular
At 04:33 PM 12/9/2005, rob brown wrote:
>BTW, I'm still waiting for your response my description of how range
>voting is subject to vote splitting, and about how Duvergers law
>would apply to Range just as it would plurality. (in particular I'd
>hope you'd look closely at my 2000 presidential e
On 12/9/05, Warren Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this whole idea, including the fact that it can lead to perpetual cycling,and other versions of this idea (this is related to "declared strategy voting")have already been discussed on the RV bulletin board.
I think the perpetual cycling problem is
this whole idea, including the fact that it can lead to perpetual cycling,
and other versions of this idea (this is related to "declared strategy voting")
have already been discussed on the RV bulletin board.
My suggestion is to join that bulletin board insetad of reinventing the wheel.
wds
e
