Mr. Simmons wrote in part-
Thanks for the example Bart. I had found a similar one myself. But I'm not
convinced that the majority candidate is more democratic than the median
candidate, just as I am not convinced that the majority candidate is
better than the Approval candidate.
---
D- Political
Mr. Simmons wrote-
I should have defined "democratic" .
My conception of democracy is what Noam Chomsky describes as a "society
in which a decent person would want to live."
In such a society, there would be lower priority for advancing the rich
(in utility) to ever greater hights, and more e
On Thu, 03 May 2001 00:27:09 -
"MIKE OSSIPOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd asked:
>
> >Someone has designated Ranked Pairs(margins), and so it's necessary
> >to ask for a complete definition of it. In particular, how exactly
> >does it deal with equal defeats, in all the kinds of situat
Forest Simmons wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">Until we find an even more democratic (yet simple) method of aggregatingindividual utility into social utility, I suggest that we stick withvarious ways of implementing Approval.In particular, we can implement Approval in various ways that overcome the"lack
Martin quoted my reply selectively, and so I'd like to send my
entire reply here:
I'd said:
It couldn't be, could it, that that's
because you don't have any examples in which those wv strategy "problems"
cause serious consequences?
Martin said:
Consequence One: People discover that t
Anthony said:
>>You're not telling me that people routinely object to any
>>post not explicitly justified by direct reference to concerns
>>actually stated by large numbers of voters, are you?
Then I said:
>>Are you telling me that people think that any post that
>>points out the irrelevance of
I'd said:
>Maybe there are 20 or 30 candidates, and the voter has other things
>to do.
Blake then said:
So, they have time to form an opinion, but not to mark it?
I reply:
Yes, you've got it. They have years to form opinions, but maybe they
have to return home soon, get to some other eng
I'd asked:
>Someone has designated Ranked Pairs(margins), and so it's necessary
>to ask for a complete definition of it. In particular, how exactly
>does it deal with equal defeats, in all the kinds of situations
>in which they can occur and in all the procedural questions they can
>raise in an
I should have defined "democratic" .
My conception of democracy is what Noam Chomsky describes as a "society
in which a decent person would want to live."
In such a society, there would be lower priority for advancing the rich
(in utility) to ever greater hights, and more effort would be focus
As Joe Weinstein pointed out long ago, it seems that very little thought
has gone into the subject of social utility as aggregation of individual
utility. Everyone seems to assume that the best way to aggregate is by
adding or averaging.
All else being equal, which is better, a candidate that c
Hmm, Ok: so what do you mean by "democratic"? I misread "democratic" as
"good" in your earlier post, I confess, so I somewhat misaimed my reply.
I should probably wait for your other posting, shouldn't I? :)
On Tue , 1 May 2001, Martin Harper wrote:
> Forest Simmons wrote:
>
>
> > I will argue in another posting that in general maximizing mean utility is
> > less democratic than maximizing median utility, which in turn is less
> > democratic than maximizing (number of voters receiving) acceptabl
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EM] Usefulness of mathematics
>> Anthony said:
>> You're not telling me that people routinely object to any
>> post not explicitly justified by direct reference to concerns
>> actually stated by large numbers of voters, are you?
>> I reply:
>>
On Tue, 01 May 2001 07:24:42 -
"MIKE OSSIPOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone has designated Ranked Pairs(margins), and so it's necessary
> to ask for a complete definition of it. In particular, how exactly
> does it deal with equal defeats, in all the kinds of situations
> in which the
On Tue, 01 May 2001 06:40:56 -
"MIKE OSSIPOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd said:
>
> >What isn't considering it. I'm considering it. That's one reason
why
> >there can be truncation. Other reasons are strategic, and lazy, and
> >principled--I'd refuse to rank anyone unacceptable, just a
Martin Harper wrote:
> Example of consequence two:
>
> A,B,C,D, in that order on the ballot paper.
>
> Sincere Votes and votes under margins:
> 10 B>A=C=D
> 10 C>A=B=D
> 10 D>A=B=C
>
> Actual Votes under wv:
> 10 B>A>C>D OR B>A>D>C OR B>A(>C=D)
> 10 C>A>B>D OR etc
> 10 D>A>B>C OR etc
>
> Resu
MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
> Martin-- Was this letter went only to me, or is it an EM posting?
> If it's sent only to me, then fine. If it's an EM posting, then why
> is a separate copy sent to me by direct e-mail?
My bad - my mailreader seems to deal with replys to your posts oddly,
and sometimes I
17 matches
Mail list logo
