Sorry about the late replies, but my inbox got away from me again.
Craig Layton wrote:
>
> Let me leave fluffy aside. I don't have my original example but I'll
> provide a simple one;
>
> 49.2% A>B>C (sincere utilities 100>30>0)
> 49.3% C>B>A (sincere utilities 100>30>0)
> 00.5% B>A>C (sinc
Craig Layton wrote:
> The important
> consideration is that almost all of the voters are highly dissatisfied with
> the outcome, therefore the result isn't a good interpretation or
> representation of the voters' preferences.
In this race, and in many real-world races, there will be
bad outcomes
Okay, I'm inhabiting an alternative continuum where 99% = 1.
>Regardless of whether the method is sensitive to strengths
>of preferences, we still don't know (from the numbers) if
>the low-utility candidate is an unpopular centrist or just
>somebody's dog. Election methods won't tell us things
>o
Craig Layton wrote:
>>Well said. As long as the method allows the voters to
>>express their preferences honestly (and feel comfortable
>>doing so), and counts those preferences in a reasonable
>>manner, how can you blame the method for making the choices
>>the voters (collectively) tell it t
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 20:28:39 +1000
"Craig Layton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Truly the campaigns can encourage voters to decrease their
support for
> >> Fluffy - enough of this and Fluffy properly loses in Condorcet.
> >> However, Condorcet is in the business of what the voters say, not
what
- Original Message -
From: "Craig Layton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Fluffy the Dog and group strategy
>
Let me leave fluffy aside. I don't have my original example b
>> From: Richard Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [EM] Fluffy the Dog and group strategy
>> Reminds me of something I wrote a couple months back.
>> Someone posted an example, which if I recall was very
>> similar to Fluffy. I replied that it m
>> Truly the campaigns can encourage voters to decrease their support for
>> Fluffy - enough of this and Fluffy properly loses in Condorcet.
>> However, Condorcet is in the business of what the voters say, not what
>> they might have said some other day.
>
>Well said. As long as the method allows
Dave Ketchum wrote:
> I see it differently:
> Two bitter campaigns have fought to a draw, as shown in the counts.
> Each of their candidates was rated acceptable by a large minority of
> voters, and UNacceptable by a majority.
> ALL of the voters rated Fluffy as acceptable - perhaps eve
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:31:55 +1000 Craig Layton wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm comming in a little late, but I just wanted to clarify one or two things
> in relation to the fluffy
> example. I don't believe that it invalidates Condorcet methods, which I
> still nominally support. It was written a
10 matches
Mail list logo
