In a message dated 98-07-15 20:39:41 EDT, you write:
>D- Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Saari's proposal is an attempted
>reversal of some 700 + years of trying to get 1 person-1 vote in Anglo-
>American history and deserves the strongest condemnation possible.
You want to give every vot
>
> Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part---
>
> But, Demorep, do you have to use the expression "1-person-1-vote"?
> That's another way of saying the method has to be Plurality, or
> maybe IRO, though it would admittedly permit Plurality With Withdrawals
> and IRO With Withdrawals.
>
> "1-person-1-vote"
Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part---
But, Demorep, do you have to use the expression "1-person-1-vote"?
That's another way of saying the method has to be Plurality, or
maybe IRO, though it would admittedly permit Plurality With Withdrawals
and IRO With Withdrawals.
"1-person-1-vote" is used to argue ag
Mr. Saari wrote in part--
No, that's not how it works. The proposed payoff scale is:
single vote - free
double vote - $1
triple vote - $10
quadruple vote - $100
---
D- Thanks for the clarification. Mr. Saari's proposal is an attempted
reversal of some 700 + years of trying to get 1 person-1 vot
In a message dated 98-07-11 01:40:18 EDT, you write:
>Is Mr. Saari suggesting that if 99 poor voters spend $1 each on a choice and
>if 1 rich voter spends $100 to oppose such choice that the rich person should
>prevail ??
No, that's not how it works. The proposed payoff scale is:
single vote -
Regarding Mike S.'s suggestions for trying to get more honest
utility indications from voters, a poll tax is completely out
of the question. In at least some parts of this country we once
had that, and we fortunately no longer do. A fee charged according
to how many points you vote for or against
Mr. Saari wrote in part--
Personally, I prefer a system where money is used. With a sufficiently steep
scale ($1, $10, $100) there would actually be only a slight opportunity for
rich people to have more influence. (A poor person casts a $10 triple-vote; a
rich person casts a $100 quadruple-vot
