On 23.5.2012, at 0.18, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > First, in my Approval voting recommendations and descriptions of Approval > strategy, I meant what I said. I don’t accept or endorse Juho’s strange > interpretations. Those are not what I meant. > You identified two of your examples by giving their "characteristic numbers", > 27,24,49 and 33,32,34. I found and commented the latter one in a mail > (http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2012-May/030400.html). > > If you want to say that one of them isn't good enough, then you need to > clearly specify it, and then tell what's wrong with it, and why you think so. > > I hope the mail was clear enough. > > [endquote] > > Are you joking? It wasn’t clear enough, bedause it said that the example > didn’t work, but said nothing about why you think so.
I'm sorry if it was not clear enough. I can provide further explanations of the unclear or missing arguments. Just point them out. > Ok, Juho, get ready. Get your pencil and paper: > > Vote for the candidates who are better than what you expect from the election > result. Thanks. I think this is the same one that I already got and commented. > Juho says: > > I'm to point out the vulnerabilities based on that given strategy, e.g. by > providing examples of situations where that strategy does not work well > enough. > > [endquote] > > Fine. Do so. I already did so in my recent mail (that starts "Here is a quick analysis..."). > I take that to mean that voters are expected to estimate (at some level) the > value of each candidate and the probability of each candidate to win, and > then estimate what the value of the outcome is likely to be. > > [endquote] > > That’s hilarious. But you’re serious. I’d just finished saying that that is > _not_ how people are going to determine their expectation. > > It will be a guess, an impression, not a calculation. Agreed. People tend to do it that way. > If it’s a u/a election, and if Compromise is the only acceptable who can beat > the unacceptables, then rank Compromise alone in 1st place. Maybe one can build an implementable strategy from this one. Some further definitions are however needed. What is the definition of and how will the voters determine if the election is a u/a election? Also terms "compromise", "acceptable" and "unacceptable" have to be defined. Does "rank Compromise alone in 1st place" mean lifting one of the candidates in the ranked vote to first place while keeping the others as they are? Juho
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
