[EM] SSD vs Tideman

[LAYTON Craig]

>Anyway, I don't think it's possible to say that there's a candidate
>who's the best, in an absolute sense. You're assuming that there
>is such a candidate, and that the candidates all have some genuine
>absolute merit ordering, and that the method should try to say what
>it is. I don't agree that there's such a thing as absolute merit, for
>the purpose of voting systems. Sure, by my standards there's absolute
>merit. Nader was incomparably better than Gore or Bush in 2000, absolutely.

>Though I claim that's true, others might disagree, and
>so, when it comes to voting systems, if someone says "best", we have
>to say "best for whom". Maybe different candidates are genuinely best
>for different people. 

It is no less possible to discuss whether either of two sets of policies or
either of two candidates are 'better' than the other, than it is to discuss
which of two voting systems are better, or for that matter, which of two
competing scientific theories are correct.  However, I agree that the idea
that you can decide who the best candidate is by holding a vote is probably
incorrect (but not an entirely ridiculous idea).

It might be possible to say that the best candidate is the one who is seen
to have been chosen using a system acceptable to the people (the more
acceptable, the better), insofar as any other candidate will cause such
disutilty by taking office that this will (most of the time) cancel out any
possible benifit from better policies etc. (obviously, this is a utilitarian
argument, liberals would differ)