Dear Warren! You wrote: > Re your "Weinstein" idea that you would vote for candidates above the median > with > approval voting, since you do not believe in utility, I ask you to consider > A. Josef Stalin > B. Adolf Hitler > C. Genghis Khan > D. Jacques Chirac > where (say) A<B<C<D in your opinion.
Depends on the priors. When they say D has more chance of winning than A and B together, only D will be approved. When they say D has less probability of winning than A and B together, also C will be approved by Weinstein's strategy. Now show me please what the "tremendous harm to humanity" will be of which you constantly talk. > Re your DFC wiki page, I hate it. Thanks again. You're a very emotional man it seems. I hope you have your pills in reach since I heard that hating is not very healthy. > I also think I want there to be a concise clear and unambiguous description > of DFC, > and that wiki isn't it. Feel free to assemble one. By the way, I told you the "concise clear and unambiguous description" you demand in one of my last emails after you had mentioned DFC. Actually, the randomness is deliberately included in the design since (i) no deterministic method will provide for group strategy equilibria when there is no Condorcet Winner in the usual sense - only randomized methods can do so, and (ii) it will provide for some kind of "proportional representation" in the long run over a number of DFC decisions. Yours, Jobst ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
