2011/6/3 Kathy Dopp <[email protected]> > > From: Jameson Quinn <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [EM] Remember Toby > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > > I'd add my "safety" fix to the near-clone problem, *if* someone can think > of > > an easy way to describe and motivate it. Basically, it looks at any > > candidate who mutually approve with the winner, and sees if they would > beat > > the winner (pairwise) with those mutual approvals turned off. This helps > > when, for instance (honest preferences): > > That sounds like it might work. >
Thanks! > > Here is my simplistic thought on a simplistic electoral method that > might solve some of plurality's problems without introducing new ones: > > That's not a simple problem, and so it's probably hard to find solutions that are both simple and new. I think that your proposal, by arbitrarily setting the number of approvals at 2, would introduce all kinds of distortions, ranging to the possibly nightmarish. As a programmer, I know that when I set arbitrary constants in my programs (except as ids), it almost always leads to bugs. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
