Re: Meta election final list.

[Charles Fiterman]

At 12:40 PM 10/9/98 -0700, you wrote:
>A couple of questions...
>
>The list seems to have shrunk. How is the decision being made as to
>which goals remain or are dropped?
>
>What exactly is this meta election going to accomplish? Are we trying
>to rank things like "Honesty" and "Secrecy"? Will we be expected to
>discuss only "winning" goals? If purely informative, why worry about
>the counting method? Why not just publish the raw data and use it
>directly?

I wasn't aware of dropping anything, the decision was to keep all goals
but to be sure to word them as goals. The reason for publishing a final
list was to make sure nothing was dropped or missed.

The idea is to hold a ranking and publish the votes. We can then use
different methods of scoring and one of the things we will learn is
if they really do produce different results in a real election not
just in a made up paradox.

We can then discuss different election methods in some sort of context.
We will know what the goals are and how they are ranked.




Charles Fiterman Geodesic Systems
414 North Orleans Suite 410 Phone 312 832 1221 x223
Chicago IL 60610-4418 FAX 312 832 1230
http://www.geodesic.com

As the complexity of a system increases our ability to make
precise and yet significant statements about its behavior
diminishes until a threshold is reached beyond which precision
and significance or relevance become almost mutually exclusive
characteristics. -- Lofti Zadeh