More standards

[Blake Cretney]

On Sun, 25 Oct 1998 17:44:18   DEMOREP1 wrote:
>Mr. Cretney wrote in part-
>
>Here's an example of what I mean.  I consider 3 alternatives, the first
>two are candidates, the third (C) is whatever happens if no candidate 
>gets an absolute approval majority.
>
>Sincere preference
>A > B > C
>None absolutely approved of.
>---
>D- Choice C is obviously the default result if neither A or B get a majority
>YES vote from ALL of the voters- NOT just Mr. C's test voter.    I mention

I don't know what you mean by drawing this distinction.  My point is
that my test voter cannot justify voting sincerely.  This is without
any kind of knowledge of how others are voting.  Doesn't this make
you question whether people will vote sincerely according to your
definition?  Isn't it possible that "absolute approval" will be
an irrelevant consideration for rational voters?

>again that there will be polls such that each voter who cares about the
>election will have some estimate of how other voters are thinking.   I mention

I don't see how this comment is relevant.  Unless you think that strategic
information is MORE likely to make voters vote sincerely.

>again that *sincere* votes by a minority of ALL of the voters should lose.
>Such voters can truncate or number vote insincerely for some compromise
>(lesser of N evils) choice (s).  The sun will still come up presumably the day
>after an election.
I don't see how those comments are relevant.

>
---
Blake



-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/  Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums