Again, please use the "reply" function on your email program, rather than rewriting and misspelling the subject line each time.
2011/10/26 MIKE OSSIPOFF <[email protected]> > > Jameson-- > > I'd said: > > > ??? The situation you describe doesn't satisfy CD's premise stipulations. > > [endquote] > > You wrote: > > Yes it does. > > [endquote] > > Read CD's premise. > Criteria cannot refer to honest preferences, only to voted ballots. > > > > Delegation proposals like SODA have been around for a very long time. > > They've > > been independently re-invented many times. > > > > You wrote: > > SODA also has a delegation order which helps resolve this > situation; this is a feature which I have not seen elsewhere. > > [endquote] > > I proposed one such on EM. > By "delegation order" I did not mean chain of delegation; I meant a one-at-a-time, perfect-information order in which the delegated votes are exercised. This is an important part of how SODA minimizes the truncation incentive in situations like this. > > I'm sure that delegation would be great.... So we agree on that. What is FUD? > Fear, uncertainty, and doubt; a rhetorical technique. > Good. Then let's get it enacted. Only time will tell. When proposing it, > I've gotten > opposition from people who felt that each person must cast their own vote. There is a difference between open-ended delegation, and a mandate to pursue a specific, pre-declared agenda among well-defined options. JQ
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
