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,
--- 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.
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
