You continued:
> In the Hitler/Stalin/Harding example, the voter is satisfied with
> nobody. It is clearly stupid for the voter to say that honestly.
>No, it's not. First of all, whereever such an example as the above is
possible, there are much more serious problems than the choice between
thos
Here is another question - will DMC lead to 2-party domination, or
not? To really answer this, it would help to understand optimal
voting strategy in DMC, which is probably beyond reach.
However, you may be able to just think about 3-candidate DMC elections
and thereby answer the question with a
OK, Now that I finally understand the DMC voting system (which is quite
interesting),
I have a few comments and questions...
>(15+3 reasons to love DMC from J.Heitzig & F.Simmons)
> 1. Allows to distinguish important from minor preferences.
--range does too, only better.
> 2. Immunity from se
Much of this is into making the language understandable to the voter - I
FULLY agree.
Some is into why a voter wants whatever - Maybe encouraging thought needs
doing, but the ballot discussion should be about what the voter wants,
just as with Plurality, and not care why.
Reruns are mentione
Dear Warren!
You wrote on approval cutoffs:
> This extra info may have nothing to do with how satisfied the voter
> is with any candidate.
Just as an expressed preference X>Y may have nothing to do with which of
X and Y is preferred by the voter. Of course that is so since voters are
free to vote
