On Dec 20, 2007 10:07 PM, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think there is no single definition of democracy in the sense that > it would determine which voting method is the best (for all > elections).
Yeah, not looking for that. There is a reason I restricted it to one simple type of election. (well, I later added another type, numerical elections) Arrow's theorem has been reworded "There is no consistent method by which a democratic society can make a choice (when voting) that is always fair when that choice must be made from among 3 or more alternatives." And all I wanted to know was, can we agree that we can be "always fair" in a case where there are only two candidates? My understanding is that Arrow believed that a two candidate election was trivially solvable, by a simple majority vote. Meanwhile, I believe the general opinion of those who advocate Range Voting is that it is NOT solvable, because Range Voting people are after a different sort of fairness than what Arrow was after. That's where I was trying to go with this. I'm trying, really hard, to understand where Range Voting fans are coming from. Sorry if it just confused people. -rob ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
