2012/9/30 Michael Ossipoff <[email protected]> > Jameson-- > > First, thanks for putting in some good words for Approval, at EM yesterday. > > But I note that, in your message at or to wiiipedia, as part of your > proposal of MJ there, you referred to Approval and Score as "inferior > methods". >
No, I didn't. I said "inferior alternatives". Implicitly, that means "... for this particular use case" (phrasing which I've now added explicitly<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems#Inferior_alternatives_for_this_use_case>). And yes, I do believe that MJ is best for the particular use case I was talking about there. In fact, earlier in the piece, I explained that: "Please note that this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. While Majority Judgment is a good system overall, there are situations where I'd recommend others even more highly. For US president, I'd recommend Approval; for US Senate, SODA Voting; for most congressional and parliamentary systems, a biproportional system such as PAL voting; in Robert's Rules situations, approval with runoffs; and in loose internet voting, Score Voting. Such flexibility is the spirit of the Declaration of Election Method Reform Advocates, of which I am a signator." Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
