On Aug 26, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
>
>> But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if
>> you think that candidate X would
>> vote like you on a random issue with probability p percent, then you could
>> gi
On 24.8.2011, at 2.07, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
> But back to a possible generic meaning of a score or cardinal rating: if you
> think that candidate X would
> vote like you on a random issue with probability p percent, then you could
> give candidate X a score that
> is p percent of the way b
On Aug 26, 2011, at 12:07 PM, fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
> Second, I want to get at the heart of the incommensurability complaint: in
> most elections some voters
> will have a much greater stake in the outcome than others. For some it may
> be a life or death issue; if X
> is elected your frien
After Kevin's and Kristopher's comments, which I agree with, I am hesitant to
beat a dead horse, but I
have two more things for the record that should not be overlooked:
First, just as there are deterministic voting methods that elicit sincere
ordinal ballots under zero
information conditions,
