On 17.10.2011, at 1.44, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Hi Juho,
Sorry in advance if I didn't read your message carefully enough, but I think
I probably
did:
For a skilled reader like you those two rows below that define the method
should be enough. So I guess you know what the method will do.
matt welland wrote:
Assuming that a) decent information about the candidates has been
available via news, web and debates and b) reasonable quality approval
polls have been conducted prior to the election then:
In the case where there are too few good options then clearly the
candidates do not
Mike,
The election closes on Sunday, and I will post a summary of results here
using a few methods. It is interesting see what supporters of one method
think about other methods.. The ballots are also available for people to do
with as they like.
For the election that you want to conduct, you
I have made this edit (of a single sentence) in the original Google Docs
version of the Declaration, and in the copy here:
http://www.votefair.org/declaration.html
I think it's now in its final form.
As before, if anyone who already signed it does not like the minor
changes, please speak
Juho Laatu wrote:
True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the
(large) elections that I have ever participated. ...
You are not really in doubt, are you? You would remember if your vote
made a difference.
I think I had my fair share of power (1 / number of voters).
Well,
On 17.10.2011, at 23.33, Michael Allan wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
True. My vote has probably not made any difference in any of the
(large) elections that I have ever participated. ...
You are not really in doubt, are you? You would remember if your vote
made a difference.
Most elections
Kristofer offers a bit of thought, but we are still missing too much
of the basic needs.
Voter NEEDs to be able to vote for candidates preferred (plural).
Approval offers this much, at little cost, but nothing more.
Voter NEEDs to be able to indicate relative preference among those
Also, Approval is like a solid, reliable and simple hand-tool. It
isn't as labor-saving as a good rank method.
The rank-methods are labor-saving machines. But machines can have
their problems /or idiosyncracies.
The ranking methods are like the saw, labor
intensive and expensive to use
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 20:42 +0200, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
matt welland wrote:
Again, I think it is very, very important to note that the ranked
systems actually lose or hide information relative to approval in both
these cases.
In what manner does a ranked method hide information?
