On 11/7/11 2:24 PM, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
Robert:
/I'd said:
/>/ I've watched someone vote in a rank-balloting presidential mock
/>/ election. Though she
/>/ prefers Nader's policies to those of the Democrats, she ranked all of
/>/ the Democrats
/>/ over Nader.
/
You replied:
it depends on how the ranked ballots are tabulated.
[endquote]
Quite.
...
>/ Is there an FBC-complying method meets UP and SDSC and that does
/>/ better by other criteria?
/>/
/>/ Is there an FBC-complying method that doesn't fail in the Approval
/>/ bad-example?
/>/
/>/ ...and maybe that also meets at least 1CM and 3P.
/>/
/
too much alphabet soup going on here.
[endquote]
We typically abbreviate the names of criteria, using the initial letters of
some of the words of their names.
On 11/7/11 2:47 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> How about a new rule? We only get to abbreviate if there's an electowiki
> article / redirect at the abbreviation name (preferably linked from the
> abbreviation), or if we've fully spelled it out earlier in the same
message.
> I unilaterally promise to follow this rule. This might be annoying to
have to
> do sometimes but it would more than pay for itself if others followed
suit.
On 11/7/11 2:49 PM, Andy Jennings wrote:
I like it! I'll follow it.
how 'bout also refraining from ALL CAPS, the use of a really dumb text
quoting protocol (is that what Hotmail does for you?) that makes it very
difficult to read, and the assumption that one speaks for the group when
they've been around for an entire month.
(and MIKE OSSIPOFF, electing the CW *is* majority rule, when the CW
exists. and i'll bet i know and understand a lot more of the gritty
details of the Burlington VT IRV elections in 2006 and 2009 and exactly
what went wrong in 2009 than you seem to grant.)
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
