On Dec 30, 2007 7:05 AM, Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > that is a bad recommendation, since it implies condorcet voting (the > > > > only method where every voter has the same strength), which is > > nowhere > > > > near as utilitarian as range voting. > > > > > > Debatable. > > > > oh yeah? where's your evidence that it's debatable? > > You should remember from past discussions why the claim that "Condorcet > voting ... is nowhere near as utilitarian as range voting" was criticized. > Ask Warren. >
I've presented evidence over and over, based mostly on the fact that Clay refuses to define utility as he intends it. So please, Clay, please define utility. Does it only include satisfaction with the elected candidates themselves? Simply a sum of the utilities people assign the candidates that end up winning? Do people with a direct vested interest in a candidate winning (such as the candidates themselves, or their campaign manager) get to have much higher utility values because it affects them more? Is this on a linear or logarithmic scale? More importantly, does it ignore long-term intangibles, such as whether people feel the election was fair, or whether everyone's vote was counted? Or are these simply ignored? Please clarify your definition. You have weaseled out of this over and over, I'd really like to know. -rob
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
