Dear Abd ul-Rahman, > Jobst, you misread Steve. He said what you intended. He assumed that, > essentially, 20 was much less than 80.
Yes, you're probably right. I have clarified what the intended interpretation is, anyway. > There are, I believe, ways to improve the performance of Range, and, > as it happens, the one I've been proposing also makes Range MC > compliant in the overall method, including a possible runoff. > Obviously, Range *cannot* be MC compliant directly, for it can pass > over the favorite of a majority, when this is only by a relatively > small preference strength, to elect a stronger preference of a > minority. Range *is* a majoritarian method since a majority can elect whomever it wants by bullet voting. > Given that I don't "believe" in measurable utility, am I an "other"? Yes, and I ask you to understand the given example in the second way. Yours, Jobst ______________________________________________________________________ XXL-Speicher, PC-Virenschutz, Spartarife & mehr: Nur im WEB.DE Club! Jetzt testen! http://produkte.web.de/club/?mc=021130 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info