dfb at bbs.cruzio.com
Sat Apr 20 20:05:27 PDT 1996
Steve suggested 2 possible ways of disqualifying an alternative:
1. If it doesn't get at least 2 approvals
2. If it gets more disapprovals than approvals
Those are both reasonable, and I second both of them. If we use
both disqualifications, then any standard that doesn't get at least
2 approvals, or gets more disapprovals than approvals is disqualified.
Personally I'd rather that disapprovals only disqualify something if
it gets disapprovals from a majority of those voting. That way, for
instance, cautious Nader voters wouldn't feel obligaged to approve
Clinton to protect him from disqualifcation by Dole voters. But
quick agreement on how to vote is crucial, so that our committee can
get going, which is why I second both of Steve's disqualifiction rules.
It would then be reasonable to use the non-disqualifed stanards in
the order of how many approvals they got. I personally would rather
go by the number of approvals than by the difference between approvals
& disapprovals, because if disapproval counts only toward disqualification
rather than subtracting from approvals, then we have something with more
in common with a good rank-balloting system. If we subtract disapproval from
approvals then we end up with a point system, like Borda. I don't
like that as much, even if Borda is a Pairwise method :-)
So this is in agreement with Steve's proposal: Any standard is
disqualified if it doesn't get at least 2 approvals, or if it gets
more disapprovals than approvals. The standards will be used in the
order of how many approvals they get.
Those are details, of course, and they aren't really important. But
it's worth emphasizing that the disqualification rules proposed by
Steve are seconded, as is Steve's proposal to vote by Approval/Disapproval.
More information about the Election-Methods