On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> How would you vote with SODA?
>
I would usually end up delegating to my favorite. I'd look at their
ranking and if it was pretty good I'd delegate. Otherwise, I'd probably
come up with my own ranking (perhaps based on theirs) and then cho
Ranking more than ten candidates? Condorcet does NOT require such.
However, if too many are running, you need to look for sanity:
. You may have preferences among those most likely to win - pick
those you see as the best few of these.
. Also pick among the few you would prefer, regard
On 02/03/2012 08:45 PM, Andy Jennings wrote:
- If someone built a computer program that presented me pairs of
candidates at a time as Kristofer suggested, that would make it somewhat
easier. I think I would still prefer to divide them into tiers first,
but if I divided them into tiers first, I
On 3.2.2012, at 21.45, Andy Jennings wrote:
> - If someone built a computer program that presented me pairs of candidates
> at a time as Kristofer suggested, that would make it somewhat easier. I
> think I would still prefer to divide them into tiers first, but if I divided
> them into tiers f
It sounds to me as if, of all the methods you mentioned, you would prefer
MJ.
How would you vote with SODA?
(go ahead and think of your answer before you read mine)
I think I'd almost always just delegate to my favorite with SODA. If I
don't like my favorite's delegation order, that would make m
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
> On 2/2/2012 11:07 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>
>> I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
>>> ...
>>>
>>
> As a contrast, to me, ranking is easier than ra
On 3.2.2012, at 0.21, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Juho Laatu
> Attempt 1: It is difficult to write something like "a>b>c" on the ballot
> paper, or to push buttons of the voting machine so that all the candidates
> will be in the correct order.
>
> Answer 1: Don't use such procedures. If
On 2/2/2012 11:07 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
...
As a contrast, to me, ranking is easier than rating. ...
I too find ranking easier than rating.
This seems to be a patter
2012/2/2 Juho Laatu
> On 2.2.2012, at 21.07, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>
> > On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> >
> >> I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
> >> (How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which
> >> allows honest r
On 2.2.2012, at 21.07, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>> I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
>> (How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which
>> allows honest rating to be full-strength in pract
On 2/2/12 2:07 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
(How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which
allows honest rating to be full-strength in practice; and SODA i
On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
(How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which
allows honest rating to be full-strength in practice; and SODA is the
only good system which allows anything easie
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> Voter can vote as in:
> . FPTP, ranking the single candidate liked best, and treating all others
> as equally liked less or disliked.
> . Approval, ranking those equally liked best, and treating all others as
> equally liked less or dis
I'm going to continue to take a devil's advocate anti-Condorcet position
here. Of course I still believe that Condorcet systems are good overall,
and much much better than plurality or IRV. But I honestly think that MJ
and SODA are better.
2012/2/1 robert bristow-johnson
> On 2/1/12 11:28 PM, Ja
On 2.2.2012, at 6.28, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> Dave gives good reasons for Condorcet. I'd like to present the other side.
>
> Condorcet systems have many advantages. So what's wrong with Condorcet?
>
> It comes in a bewildering array of forms, thus reducing the unity of its
> supporters. But that
On 2/1/12 11:28 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
Dave gives good reasons for Condorcet. I'd like to present the other
side.
Condorcet systems have many advantages. So what's wrong with Condorcet?
It comes in a bewildering array of forms, thus reducing the unity of
its supporters. But that's not the r
Dave gives good reasons for Condorcet. I'd like to present the other side.
Condorcet systems have many advantages. So what's wrong with Condorcet?
It comes in a bewildering array of forms, thus reducing the unity of its
supporters. But that's not the real problem.
It admits both betrayal and bur
17 matches
Mail list logo
