On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 08:19:52 -0400 Florian Lengyel wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 03:17:30 -0400, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:09:31 -0400 Bill Clark wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:03:28 -0700, Brian Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agreed the hard-sciences often talk of randomness - AND - often mean a carefully designed pattern that will produce the variety of numbers that suit their needs.
HOWEVER, the voters properly demand a truthful statement based on what they have said (something usually also demanded in the hard-sciences - who can want outputs appropriate to their random inputs).
Anyway, is it acceptable to elect a lesbian or imbecile 10% of the time if such results would please 10% of the voters?
Provided if one could insure that the 10% who voted for the imbecile would live with the consequences of the imbecile's economic, military and political programs, with the rest of the voters unaffected (or living under the policies of the candidate they voted for), that might be acceptable.
Trouble with that dream is that ALL must share in what the winner does.
The lesbian might do well, outside of offending those who are offendable.
We have had experience with imbeciles, and should have learned to fear their likelydestructiveness.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
