This method gives official standing to the idea of a linear political
spectrum. That's probably a Bad Thing, but I'll describe the method anyway.
On the ballot, there are 3 boxes next to each candidate's name:
Mark one:
[ ] This candidate is acceptable to me.
[ ] This candidate is too
Dear Russ,
you wrote (26 Jan 2005):
Also, when you insisted that I post pseudocode for CSSD at the site, I
learned a lot about your level of sophistication. I told you that the
Python code that I had already written essentially serves as pseudocode.
That's partly why Python is a very popular
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [EM] Rewordng strategy A (BF(1st))
The strategy that's been called Strategy A, and which I've been calling
BF(1st) has been worded like this:
The Approval cutoff point goes adjacent to the candidate expected to get the
most votes, toward the side of
I realize that people aren't interested in these postings in which Russ
posts his astonishingly ignorance and I try to help him understand what he's
talking about. There' s no reason why his education should take place on
this mailing list. Take it off-list? Of course, and, as I said, I
Forest--
The Approval cutoff is between the two expected frontrunners, and is
adjacent to the one that is expected to outpoll the other.
[end of suggested rewording of BF(1st)]
You wrote:
This wording is the best I've seen for introducing the concept, but it
doesn't tell what to do when (1)
Forest--
You probably have noticed this before now, but,
in addition to being a simplification of Expected Differences, the
Better/Worse strategy is a also a simplification of your Better Than
Expectation strategy.
Mike Ossipoff
Forest wrote:
This wording is the best I've seen for introducing the concept,
but it doesn't tell what to do when (1) neither of the two
frontrunners is preferred over the other by the voter, or what to
do in the case (2) when the two frontrunners are considered
equally likely to win.
I
