Some thoughts.
1. You need to consider the difference between Cardinal and Ordinal Utility.
You presume the existence of Cardinal utility. Ordinal utility can be
monotonically positively transformed so long as it preserves the order.
For example, if the original scale is between 0 and 100 then
At 02:16 PM 6/30/2013, David L Wetzell wrote:
I've argued that the combination of aspects of the US political
system in our constitution, namely the import of winner-take-all
presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections(obviously hard to
change), + habits built up among many US voters( used
Benjamin:
You are right to point out that we should have some discussion of basic
principles to underly our discussion of specific systems. Here are my own
views:
1. There is no single easy philosophical answer to these questions. There
will always be those who, like Clay, would rather grab the
For some unknown reason, Jameson responded with a new subject header,
instead of to my original EMAV proposal, so I'm copying that at the
end of this post.
At 10:13 PM 6/30/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
Abd proposed Bucklin//Score, which he dubbed evaluative majority
approval voting. My first,
Did my arrival somehow bring less civility and/or tolerance, or was this
always a rough-and-tumble place before I even got here?
I would hate to think that I brought the level of conversation down,
politeness-wise.
-Benn Grant
-Original Message-
From: electionscie...@googlegroups.com
I responded with a new subject header because I was still hoping that Abd
would respond to my earlier post, copied below:
Abd:
Frankly, I'm a bit frustrated. One of the main reasons I proposed MAV in
the first place was that you seemed to support it. You've done a good job
expressing the
At 11:03 AM 7/1/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
Benjamin:
You are right to point out that we should have some discussion of
basic principles to underly our discussion of specific systems. Here
are my own views:
1. There is no single easy philosophical answer to these questions.
There will
2013/6/30 David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
I've argued I have argued
My next arg
I then have argued
This is a long chain of reasoning. Each link may seem solid to you, but
even if you are 80% right at each of four steps, by the end of the chain
you're only 40% right.
Thanks for everyone's candor and feedback. I can certainly appreciate how
annoying it is to deal with someone like myself that 1) is often asking
questions that everyone else had heard many times before and knows the
answer by heart, and 2) someone who may not be able to understand the
At 12:32 PM 7/1/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I responded with a new subject header because I was still hoping
that Abd would respond to my earlier post, copied below:
I'll answer here.
Abd:
Frankly, I'm a bit frustrated.
My condolences. Have you tried breathing exercises? I recommend
On 07/01/2013 07:27 PM, Benjamin Grant wrote:
Did my arrival somehow bring less civility and/or tolerance, or was this
always a rough-and-tumble place before I even got here?
I would hate to think that I brought the level of conversation down,
politeness-wise.
If you're counting my recent
It seems to me that we're not connecting on several levels.
Most importantly, on consensus process. I've participated in consensus
decisions in real life, and it seems to me that there are at least two
different ways they can break down. You are right that one of the ways is
for a majority to
Kristopher Munsterhjelm wrote (30 June 2013):
Would you suggest that the elimination ordering only be calculated based
on the votes of those who currently don't get any representation?
No, because that is only provisional. You'd have to go back to using quotas
for that to be maybe ok. So votes
13 matches
Mail list logo
