Forest Simmons wrote:
> Suppose that f and g were the same. Then each voter could be asked to
> compare each candidate to herself. This could be very appropriate in
> a representative democracy where the representatives are supposed to serve
> as proxies for the citizens that they represent.
>
>
That's why we still need the None of the Above option and write-in
capability :-)
On Thu, 10 May 2001, LAYTON Craig wrote:
> >The ballot could be worded as follows: Check the YES box next to each
> >candidate that you believe would do a better job in the position to which
> >they aspire than you
>The ballot could be worded as follows: Check the YES box next to each
>candidate that you believe would do a better job in the position to which
>they aspire than you yourself would if you had the appropriate technical
>competency and stomach for that kind of work.
Oh dear. What about those of
This is a very interesting idea.
A couple of thoughts:
Suppose that f and g were the same. Then each voter could be asked to
compare each candidate to herself. This could be very appropriate in
a representative democracy where the representatives are supposed to serve
as proxies for the citizens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Mr. Harper wrote in part-
>>
>> 100 A >> B > C
>> 100 C >> B > A
>> 1 B > A = C
>>
> Since none of them gets a YES majority, then none of them should be
> elected
> (even if there was a Condorcet Winner).
>
While I don't agree with Demorep's statement, it did get me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> D- From my friendly Webster's Dictionary-
>
> de-moc-ra-cy
> 3. majority rule
>
> ma-jor-i-ty
> 1. the greater part or larger number; more than half of a total.
>
> (Each word has some other definitions).
>
> The good old Oxford Dictionary of the English Language lists
