Kathy Dopp > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 5:20 AM
> "Later-No-Harm", however, is incompatible with the basic
> principles of majority rule, which requires compromise if
> decisions are to be made. That's because the peculiar design
> of sequential elimination guarantees -- if a majority is not
(May I use the list as a scratch pad, to record ideas? There's a
theory somewhere in these technical pieces, and maybe it connects with
the social architecture being mooted in other threads.)
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/4yAf4tghgQ5b53pGbPDRpZ
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/XfrpCKqPLfZVDbcSn
Dear Forest,
This is indeed astonishing from a slightly different point of view: if I rate the winner well below the benchmark lottery, my action tends to cause other voters'
accounts to lower, but does not cause mine to increase, yet the total is constant. Magic!
Not so astonishing after all,
(It occurs to me, Abd may have thoughts on this topic too. I haven't
read all of his Wiki. It's still down.)
http://beyondpolitics.org/wiki/
Juho wrote:
>
> I'm quite confident that the possibility of continuous cyclic changes in
> continuous elections (due to cycles in the group opinions; A pr
