[EMAIL PROTECTED]">But when I talk to people about voting, they, believe it or not,Yes that's true, but I'm not in the marketing department...
don't object to Plurality because distances from lines drawn on a
diagram aren't what they should be. No, what they say is that
people who prefer Nader should vote for Gore instead, because that's the
only way of making Bush lose.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">You seem to regard this as some sort of mathematical game or art formArt form? No, I don't see it that way. Game? No. Mathematical?
that should be above such mundane considerations as the concerns of
voters and the political and material consequences of the voting system.
Definitely. But so many of the discussions on this list are either mathematical
in nature or have a mathematical background. Why pick on this particular
post all of a sudden? If you don't think it's important, you've already said so.
That should suffice. My objection was that you said so in a way that
completely mischaracterized what I had said. You said, "Richard has written
about how one thing he likes about margins is that it looks nice on a certain
diagram."
My post was merely my late contribution to an already arcane discussion
about scoring methods for Condorcet completion schemes. Talk about
grabbing the public's attention. Are you saying such discussions don't have
a place on this list because they aren't flashy enough for public
consumption? It was a discussion I didn't have much interest in
at the time it came up. Later when the EM poll forced me to start thinking
about the topic I posted the answer I came up with, an answer as satisfying
to me as your justification of winning votes is to you.
Finally, in case you're wondering, I do have an interest in social aspects of
the systems we discuss, though you don't seem to realize it. If there were
no social or political consequences I wouldn't be writing here in the first
place. Do you think that about me because I refrain from discussing
political ideologies?
Richard
