Good Morning, David
re: I see an 'Election Commission' there. ...
You're right. 'Election Commission' was a poor choice of terms on my
part. Our experience with commissions in party politics is enough to
destroy anyone's confidence that such entities can be objective. I
could have used
Good Morning, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Again, I'm not quite sure how to respond. Please forgive me but I seem
to be too dull to grasp the point you're making, if there is one. While
I believe humor is important in conveying ideas (however inept I may be
at using it), facetious comments, without
Good Morning, Juho
re: The method introduces some clear benefits but also some problems.
I'd maybe try to find a method that would keep most of the benefits and
eliminate most of the problems. (There could be many paths forward.)
I agree. We have many options. Right now, our best bet is to
(a) Both of these city-states used range voting (RV):
Venice using {-1, 0, +1} range, and Sparta using a continuum score-range.
(b) Both were, at their peak, arguably the most powerful countries in Europe.
(c) Both arguably lasted longer than any other substantially
democratic government
ever.
At 01:02 AM 3/24/2008, you wrote:
Yeah, I'm confused too. I haven't even figured out how second choices
are determined for IRV and Condorcet.
Even? That's much harder and was not specified. The first problem
is easy. Just read the thing, and don't make assumptions. It was
stated accurately.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Dave Ketchum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:51:42 -0400 you wrote:
I went thru several thoughts:
Did you make up the data?
--yes.
So I question the quality:
Why is Plurality not going to be neutral, echoing data
