Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:41 AM 1/21/2009, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
My usual argument against Approval (in favor of something more
complex) is this: Say there are three viable parties (if there will be
only two, why have Approval in the first place?). You support A B
C. If A is
Juho Laatu wrote:
Yes, it is good to facilitate mutual
discussion better. My aim with this
discussion is to study if one can
combine that with the good old
privacy / secret vote principles.
The most significant combo (I think) is that of the existing general
electoral systems of the state
Juho Laatu wrote:
I try to summarize my comments in the
form of some rough definitions.
A simple method requires
1) a 'simple' method to convert honest
preferences into optimal votes
A zero-info method requires
2) this method may not use info about
other voters, but still be able to
convert
Juho Laatu wrote:
d) voting on laws, too
I read this as allowing individual
voters to vote directly too, without
any proxies between them and the
decisions (on laws and on anything).
Quite OK but I have some concerns
on what will happen in the tax
raise questions. It is possible that
the
At 09:51 AM 1/23/2009, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
I did not mean to say the voter has no opinion. He may well hold the
opinion that, say, A is much better than B in some respect, and B is
much better than A in another respect, so that neither is A
preferable to B nor B to A nor are they equivalent
Kevin,
I can't see what's so highly absurd about failing mono-append. It's
basically a limited case of mono-raise, and one that doesn't seem
especially more important. Is it absurd to fail mono-raise?
The absurdity of failing mono-append is compounded by the cheapness of
meeting it. As with
At 06:47 AM 1/23/2009, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I'll say again: if there are more than two viable parties, the this
could happen. If there will be only two viable parties, why use Approval?
You've missed something crucial: Approval is being proposed for
public partisan elections where
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:22:13 -0500 Michael Allan wrote:
Juho Laatu wrote:
Yes, it is good to facilitate mutual
discussion better. My aim with this
discussion is to study if one can
combine that with the good old
privacy / secret vote principles.
The most significant combo (I think) is that
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:47:53 +0100 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 05:41 AM 1/21/2009, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
My usual argument against Approval (in favor of something more
complex) is this: Say there are three viable parties (if there will
be only two,
