On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:52:49 -0400 Abd ulRahman Lomax wrote:
At 12:24 AM 9/10/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Approval gets mentioned so often that I comment up front:
Approval as the method. Simple, but a loser because I too
often come up with something like: I WANT Nader, but I cannot
At 03:40 AM 9/12/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Approval has the singular advantage of requiring no ballot changes,
only a tweak of the election rules: simply stop discarding
overvoted ballots.
Not much advantage, for even this requires reprogramming. Better to
go for more good with the
At 12:24 AM 9/10/2005, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Approval gets mentioned so often that I comment up front:
Approval as the method. Simple, but a loser because I too
often come up with something like: I WANT Nader, but I cannot
tolerate Bush - so far, so good - But, Nader is not a likely
I am sending this to both Condorcet and EM.
This post is ammunition for asking that the explanations be kept
simple enough for real voters to understand - which argues for keeping the
method simple. Trying for an understandable explanation of Condorcet:
Approval gets mentioned so often that I
