On Dec 30, 2007 2:05 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that, whatever Approval can do, the other methods are also
capable of doing.
what kind of totally meaningless statement is that? any voting method
is capable of electing anyone. but it will react to the way the
voters
On Dec 30, 2007, at 3:23 , CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
This mail stream is about joining forces in defending all the good
methods.
well, good is relative. combining utility efficiency with
simplicity/practicality, range and approval are unparalled. so why
would we want to spend time defending
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 20:31:13 -0800 CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007 7:03 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somehow we are not talking the same language.
An example that could be executed, with voters each splitting candidates
into two groups (as many as they choose into each) and
On Dec 29, 2007, at 10:53 , CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
Seems like Rob Brown gave us a start on moving ahead.
the best way to move ahead is to dump ordinal voting methods for
cardinal ones. approval voting is vastly simpler than all ranked
methods.
i don't know why we're still talking about
On Dec 29, 2007 1:17 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:53:56 -0800 CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
Seems like Rob Brown gave us a start on moving ahead.
the best way to move ahead is to dump ordinal voting methods for
cardinal ones. approval voting is vastly simpler
On Dec 29, 2007 1:40 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't know why we're still talking about ranked methods in this
day and age.
Simply since many if not most experts seem to feel that they are good
if not best (for typical political single-winner elections).
well, they're not. and
On Dec 29, 2007 5:23 PM, CLAY SHENTRUP [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.
Except that your definition of utilitarian is
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:23:38 -0800 CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007 1:40 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't know why we're still talking about ranked methods in this
day and age.
Simply since many if not most experts seem to feel that they are good
if not best (for typical political
On Dec 29, 2007 7:52 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your enthusiasm for Approval continues to puzzle. How could many voters
find its inability to give backing to more than one, while flagging one as
best, acceptable?
social utility efficiency calculations show that approval
On Dec 29, 2007 9:07 PM, Paul Kislanko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Regarding your last question to the poster, I suggest it is up to you prove
it is not debatable. You make a number of assertions that are contrary to
fact.
if that were true, you should have been able to name one - but you
10 matches
Mail list logo
