At 11:12 AM 6/16/2005, Kevin Venzke wrote:
Does this mean you feel a system is "unfair" unless *every* voter can
select a representative? That sounds difficult to implement.
Yes, it *seems* that way. But, in fact, this is standard practice in
corporate governance. Every shareholder can either
Hello,
--- Abd ulRahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> At 10:36 AM 6/15/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
>
>>Since Mike has stated that the purpose of AERLO is for
>>"acceptable/unacceptable" voters to enter below the acceptable set of
>>candidates, I suppose there's no reason not to
>>call
At 10:36 AM 6/15/2005, Chris Benham wrote:
Why stop at only two elections?". I don't know any good answer to that.
One of my general points is that elections, especially elections for
representatives, are inherently unfair, for they almost guarantee that some
voters will end up unrepresent
At 06:12 PM 6/14/2005, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
What I meant was this: When a voter expressed that s/he prefers A to B, we
interpret this to mean that if s/he could choose between A and B, she would
choose A. Now what do we think the voter would choose when s/he put A and B
at equal ranks? Do we assu
Mike,
You wrote:
What's important about strategy is the mininimization of _need_ for
strategy. That's how strategy is important.
In wv or MMPO, if you truncate to deter offensive strategy, the only
importance of that deterrence is that it keeps you from needing more
drastic defensive strateg
Mike,
You wrote:
What's important about strategy is the mininimization of _need_ for
strategy. That's how strategy is important.
In wv or MMPO, if you truncate to deter offensive strategy, the only
importance of that deterrence is that it keeps you from needing more
drastic defensive strateg
Mike,
--- MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I notice that Jobst, Kevin, and someone whose initials I didn't recognize,
> strongly disagree with having AERLO as an option.
>
> To those 3 people, I say: The nice thing about an option is that it's
> optional. You don't have to use it.
Jobst,
In answer to a question from Mike Ossipoff
About the part about equal ranking resulting in candidates having the
same probabililty of winning:
It's impossible for me to give two candidates equal probability of
winning by ranking them equal. Did the question mean "equal effect on
their wi
Dear Mike!
Thank you for taking the time to have a look at the questionaire and
for your comments.
You wrote:
> It asked if a method should force people to vote honestly. I answered
> "--" because the freedom to vote honestly is important, rather than
> being forced to.
I did not meant "force" w
A few comments about the questionaire:
It asked if a method should force people to vote honestly. I answered "--"
because the freedom to vote honestly is important, rather than being forced
to.
I added "to allow people to vote honestly", just below that. But, to clarify
the meaning, today I
10 matches
Mail list logo
