Good Morning, Jonathan
Thank you very much for explaining the purpose of the process. Except
for mentioning my preference for a series of very small, randomly chosen
groups of people (3) selecting the person they believe best represents
their interest, a process that focuses on positives
Hi Brian,
(Sorry to everyone I haven't been responding to. My computer died and I'm
still trying to recover.)
--- En date de : Lun 30.6.08, Brian Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
De: Brian Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet: Re: [Election-Methods] USING Condorcet
À: Election Methods Mailing List
On Jul 1, 2008, at 16:37 , Kevin Venzke wrote:
--- En date de : Lun 30.6.08, Brian Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
It's worth rating everyone because if you wind up not
getting any of
the ones you 'approve of' you can still have some
say in which of the
rest of them you get.
I don't
Hi Juho,
--- En date de : Mar 1.7.08, Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
De: Juho [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't entirely agree. I would rank below my
strategically-determined
approval cutoff (if I suppose the same election could
be held also
under
Approval), but I wouldn't rank that much
Saying it more carefully:
When ranking another candidate, this means giving the same rank to
all the equally best liked among those considered.
There can always be another pass at ranking, so it is never
necessary to include a candidate just because they must get ranked.
Whenever
Ok, election with three candidates only is the most risky from burial
point of view since then it is easy to identify the relative position
of different candidates (one winner (A), one loser but powerful
enough to try the strategy (B), one loser that is weak enough to be
used for burial
