Fred Gohlke wrote:
Good Morning, Kristofer
Thanks for the link. I'll check it as soon as I can.
re: "If the council is of size 7, no opinion that holds less than
1/7 of the voters can be represented, so if the opinion is
spread too thin, it'll be removed from the system; but if
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> That is interesting. Perhaps one could have, for example, a "Condorcet
> party" that pledges to run the Condorcet winner of an earlier internal
> election for president. Then various small parties could nominally join up
> with the Condorcet party, and that party
Raph Frank wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A random assembly also resists the attack where one corrupts
candidates, simply because it's not clear who the candidates are
going to be.
There is also the effect that a person who wants to be
On 9/16/08, Michael Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Like you said about Napster, "even with a small number of people, it
> was worth using". But I'm mistaken to claim that Napster was
> therefore "free of scale dependencies". It's not either/or. A
> start-up threshold can be orthogonal to
On 9/15/08, Fred Gohlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good Morning, Raph
>
> re: (With regard to the suggestion that the process 'Have one
> triad judge the other'):
>
> "Well, the person can still try to convince the judges, the
> point is that he doesn't act as judge of his own fitn
On 9/15/08, Fred Gohlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Holders of minority views who wish their view to gain ascendancy have an
> obligation to persuade the majority of their compatriots that their
> (currently minority) view is advantageous for all the people. If they can
> not do so, they have no
