On 11 Jan 2005 at 14:40 PST, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
>>
>> But ... your argument that, if W differs from A, this implies "that W
>> beat every candidate that A beats head to head" does not follow. It
>> only implies that W has highest approval in U(A).
>
> No, Forest is right, he defined:
>>> Let U(
Let's suppose that there are three candidates, and that one of them C
is preferred over the other two by fifty percent plus majorities (not
just by more for than against).
Suppose that candidate X (not equal to C) is the perceived front runner
going into the first election. Then strategic vote
Daniel Bishop wrote:
>Forest Simmons wrote:
>
>> Ballots are ordinal rankings or cardinal ratings.
>>
>> Any candidate with more than average first place rankings or ratings
>> gets a point. Any candidate with fewer than average last place (or
>> truncated) rankings or ratings gets a point
The disclosure below, of using imagination instead of reasoning, is
something that I was assuming that Mr OSSIPOFF did
Below the text of OSSIPOFF claims that Mr Paielli said he preferred
to use imahination.
I checked the e-mails and Mr Paielli did not say what Mr OSSIPOFF had
said he did.
I gu
Again I neglected to write down the subject line so that I could post with
the same subject line.
James--
I'd said:
Approval quickly homes in on the voter median, and then stays there.
Condorcet goes directly to the voter median in its 1st election.
Approval
& CR do so in thei r 2nd election. Tha
