On 8/25/2011 11:29 AM, Peter Zbornik wrote:
> ...
> As this is an "expert opinion", it is important that almost all experts
> agree, otherwise it is not an expert opinion.
> ...
> Then the other question is who is an expert.
> Someone who has published at least one paper in a peer-reviewed journal
Here are some additional paragraphs that can be added to our
declaration. I've written them to cover some important concepts that are
currently not explained.
--- begin new paragraphs --
"Roberts Rules of Order contain rules about voting, so any organization
that has f
On Sat, 2011-08-27 at 16:22 -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> > > But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
> > > will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
> > > otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
> > TRULY, thi
On Aug 27, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
nD votes. If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
by creating a majority with
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Conditions surrounding elections vary but, picking on a simple
> example, suppose that, without your vote, there are exactly nR and
> nD votes. If that is the total vote you get to decide the election
> by creating a majority with your vote.
What do nR and nD stand for?
> O
On Aug 27, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Michael Allan wrote:
But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
Dave Ketchum wrote:
TRULY, this demonstrates lack of unde
> > But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote
> > will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose
> > otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree?
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> TRULY, this demonstrates lack of understanding of cause and effect.
>
> IF th
On 27.8.2011, at 17.38, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>
>> On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>>
>>> 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
On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:25 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
>
>> 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
On 27.8.2011, at 2.13, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> 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 rando
Warren Smith wrote:
> --no. A single ballot can change the outcome of an election. This
> is true in any election method which is capable of having at least
> two outcomes.
> Proof: simply change ballots one by one until the outcome changes.
> At the moment it changes, that single ballot changed
11 matches
Mail list logo