In large elections with evenly spread voters and candidates and no
strategies the distribution of Approval votes may indeed be such that
the best candidate regularly wins. The situation may however be also
different. I gave one simple example where the left wing had two
candidates and the
On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:40 AM, Matthew Welland wrote:
Also, again, your single vote is irrelevant.
except in a close election.
It is the aggregate of
thousands or millions of votes that will make or break A vs. B. How
many
feel so strongly against A that they cannot vote for him or her?
T
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 03:37:56 am Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> Matthew Welland wrote:
> > So, to re-frame my question. What is the fatal flaw with approval? I'm
> > not interested in subtle flaws that result in imperfect results. I'm
> > interested in flaws that result in big problems such
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
wrote:
> IMHO, it is that you need concurrent polling in order to consistently elect
> a good winner. If you don't have polling and thus don't know where to put
> the cutoff (between approve and not-approve), you'll face the Burr dilemma:
>
Matthew Welland wrote:
So, to re-frame my question. What is the fatal flaw with approval? I'm
not interested in subtle flaws that result in imperfect results. I'm
interested in flaws that result in big problems such as those we see
with plurality and IRV.
IMHO, it is that you need concurrent
