On Dec 29, 2007 9:07 PM, Paul Kislanko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding your last question to the poster, I suggest it is up to you prove > it is not debatable. You make a number of assertions that are contrary to > fact.
if that were true, you should have been able to name one - but you didn't. > As an educated voter I would never accept your proposal. So, it is > "debatable." well, you're just wrong. saying "i don't agree" is not "debate". if a flat-earther says it's "debatable" whether earth is round, he's wrong. there's no ambiguity in the evidence. the same is true of range voting compared to condorcet. social utility efficiency calculations rigorously support that, and the externalities of increased simplicity with range voting clearly topple any claim someone could have that there is a debate here. please get your facts in order. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
