On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 22:46:17 -0800 rob brown wrote:
On Dec 22, 2007 8:04 PM, Jan Kok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Yes, some people might vote weak preferences in their first Range
Voting election, then learn their lesson when their preference lost
On Dec 23, 2007 11:43 AM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And then Gore loses, just like he did with Plurality.
But what other voters do also matters.
Surely you understood that I had considered that others might do the same
thing.
The point is, the issue of vote splitting with
On Dec 23, 2007 10:49 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now bak to the question. Majority vote may often not yield the
optimum outcome (from some chosen high level theoretical viewpoint)
but majority vote may well be considered to be the best practical
method for competitive two candidate
On Dec 23, 2007, at 22:52 , rob brown wrote:
On Dec 23, 2007 10:49 AM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now bak to the question. Majority vote may often not yield the
optimum outcome (from some chosen high level theoretical viewpoint)
but majority vote may well be considered to be the best
On Dec 23, 2007 2:00 PM, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Works with humans too. Three friends living in different places might
agree to meet at a place that has equal distance to all three homes. Or they
might select a place that minimizes the sum of the distances (maybe they
will share the
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:44:56 +0100 (CET) Kevin Venzke wrote:
Dave,
--- Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
So we look for a method suitable for two, or more, candidates, such as:
Approval - cannot rank 3 candidates as best, worst, and soso
(matters when voter wants to indicate
Dave,
--- Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Seems to me we are agreed as to goals, but are tripping over what I meant
when I said effectively. I MEANT to learn how Range works, and then do
the best I could within those rules, such as:
best - max score to try for winning.
