Eric Gorr wrote:
> With Approval and Condorcet, the entire way you vote will affect the
> outcome of an election.
But Jan's point is that with Approval or Condorcet, most of the time the
way you vote WON'T affect the outcome of the election, because your single
vote gets swamped by the sheer volu
At 5:50 PM -0700 1/23/04, Jan Kok wrote:
My straw proposal for the definition of "counts" is: "changes the
outcome of an election".
So what is Mike really saying here?:
True, Approval doesn't let you vote all your preferences, but
at least it reliably counts all those that you vote. That can
Eric Gorr wrote:
>At 10:35 AM -0700 1/23/04, Jan Kok wrote:
>>Mike Ossipoff wrote (many things, including):
>> > True, Approval doesn't let you vote all your preferences, but
>>> at least it reliably counts all those that you vote. That can't
>>> be said for IRV.
>>
>>What do we mean by "counts"
At 10:35 AM -0700 1/23/04, Jan Kok wrote:
Mike Ossipoff wrote (many things, including):
> True, Approval doesn't let you vote all your preferences, but
at least it reliably counts all those that you vote. That can't
be said for IRV.
What do we mean by "counts"?
The election system would take it
