On Aug 15, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > It's true that I might agree to a statement if all it said were "We believe > that approval is marginally superior to plurality" (thought to the extent > that I agreed, I don't think it's enough better to merit any energy in > advocating it). But that's not what you're proposing. Is it? > > > No. I'm proposing saying that, in different words, along with a number of > other things with which you haven't disagreed. Including that we believe that > approval is a step towards systems which we see as significantly superior to > plurality. (Remember - just as approval is 2-level Range, approval is also > 2-level Schulze or what have you, and also no-intercandidate-preference SODA, > etc.) So, either propose some specific change in the language relating to > approval, or bring some other objection, or both. >
The statement says, in effect, "Range is good, IRV is bad". I disagree. Perhaps I'm the only one, in which case it's inconsequential that I'm not aboard. (What Schulze are we talking about? I associate the name with a Condorcet-cycle-breaking method.)
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
