At 06:10 PM 6/7/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
Let's just drop this. You're technically wrong but substantially
right, and I don't see what's to be gained by convincing you of that
that's worth the time I think it would take.
As to the name thing, you called me "James". No big deal, really. I
made the "Joe" joke, then you didn't realize what I was talking
about and implied I was serious. Misunderstanding.
Weird. I actually looked through the mail to find where I might have
used the wrong name for you and didn't notice that *it was right there.*
But I didn't think you were serious, Jameson. After all, you had a
smiley face there. I responded, then, deadpan. How did I "imply you
were serious"?
As to the issue, no, I want to know, but it doesn't have to be from
you. You are claiming I'm "technically wrong," and perhaps I am, but
.... I have not see the evidence. "Turkey raising" didn't cut it.
Once again, anyone, see the question in the subject header. If it
fails, please show an example.
To repeat, let this be the basic definition of "top two approval."
Approval voting is used for a primary and the top two candidates are
placed on the ballot in the general election. Write-in votes are
allowed in the runoff. Does the primary fail FBC?
(This is the Arizona proposal, recently referred to a special
advisory committee on approval voting, it appears, if the House
passes the amended version.)
Trick bonus question: if the general election is also approval, does
the method fail FBC?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
