Hi Dave,
--- En date de : Ven 8.1.10, Dave Ketchum a écrit :
> I said "approval", not
> "Approval". I read Range ratings of A-1, B-9, and C-2
> as saying B is much more strongly approved than A or B.
You are looking at the meaning of Range ratings on a ballot, but you
don't seem to care how Ran
I said "approval", not "Approval". I read Range ratings of A-1, B-9,
and C-2 as saying B is much more strongly approved than A or B.
Saying it backwards, ranking A-1, B-9, and C-2 in Condorcet makes B
more approved than A or C, but the ranking shows only equality or
inequality, while the
Hi,
Considering that Dave always disliked Approval (because it lacks
expressivity), I consider the below quote a compelling suggestion
that Range shouldn't be used in public elections. He judges Range
entirely by its ballot, taking it at face value. Won't a number of
people do the same thing?
-
Comparing these two is a waste of time. EACH has demonstrated
weaknesses that should have us working together on moving ahead.
Where to go?
Condorcet lets voters vote much as they are promised for IRV. It lets
voters vote for those they most like, ranking their votes to show
which they
> Therefore IRV/STV is no better than plurality, but has extra very
> serious flaws, inequities, and vagaries that plurality does not have.
I definitively disagree. Plurality is worst than IRV.
The flaws that IRV does have are real.
But these problems appear very less often than the splitting-
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:39 AM, robert bristow-johnson
wrote:
> i knew that. but what i wanted to know is if, from where you stand, it was
> one of the acceptable alternatives to IRV. or if your ideal solution is to
> return to the "traditional" runoff or just first-past-the-pole.
I think Cond
