Correction: I note that a1 was one of the 100 voters, so a1=b1, which
changes the results a bit, but not much, so never mind.
BR, Juho
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On Aug 30, 2005, at 03:49, Warren Smith replied to Jobst Heitzig:
So you suggest that when candidate A gives $20 to 1 voter and
nothing to the other 99 voters, but candidate B gives $1000 to each of
the 100 voters, then candidate A should be considered best for society.
--YES!! (at least,
At 08:49 PM 8/29/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
>Do you suggest the election system should rather declare one of the
candidates which are not approved by anyone the winner than to demand a
new election because of lack of approved candidates. (I certainly don't
agree to that.)
--yes I do. The job of
Dear Dave!
You wrote:
> > Absolutely! I have often argued here that preferences are not linear and
> > that we should allow voters to express undecidedness when one of their
> > criteria says A>B and the other says B>A, instead of forcing them to
> > either vote A=B or weigh their criteria in thi
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:22:59 +0200 Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Hello Warren, again.
You wrote:
--well, I really dislike that gimmick. It seems to me not to solve anything.
Do you suggest the election system should rather declare one of the
candidates which are not approved by anyone the winner
>Do you suggest the election system should rather declare one of the
candidates which are not approved by anyone the winner than to demand a
new election because of lack of approved candidates. (I certainly don't
agree to that.)
--yes I do. The job of a single-winner election system is to produc
Hello Warren, again.
You wrote:
> --well, I really dislike that gimmick. It seems to me not to solve anything.
Do you suggest the election system should rather declare one of the
candidates which are not approved by anyone the winner than to demand a
new election because of lack of approved can
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
