On Dec 30, 2007 7:05 AM, Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > that is a bad recommendation, since it implies condorcet voting (the
> > > > only method where every voter has the same strength), which is
> > nowhere
> > > > near as utilitarian as range voting.
> > >
> > > Debatable.
> >
>
Clay,
--- CLAY SHENTRUP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > > that is a bad recommendation, since it implies condorcet voting (the
> > > only method where every voter has the same strength), which is
> nowhere
> > > near as utilitarian as range voting.
> >
> > Debatable.
>
> oh yeah? where's your
On Dec 30, 2007, at 2:00 , Kevin Venzke wrote:
> Rob,
>
> --- rob brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>> Approval is simple only if you find it convenient to ignore such
>> questions
>> as "how should a voter vote to best
>> pursue his interests?" If you happen to include such things in the
>> eq
On Dec 29, 2007 4:00 PM, Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> --- rob brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> > Approval is simple only if you find it convenient to ignore such
> > questions
> > as "how should a voter vote to best
> > pursue his interests?" If you happen to include suc
Rob,
--- rob brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Approval is simple only if you find it convenient to ignore such
> questions
> as "how should a voter vote to best
> pursue his interests?" If you happen to include such things in the
> equation, Approval mind-blowingly complex.
I can't think of
