[EM] Voting paradoxes article

[Bart Ingles]

I had considered looking over his book, in hopes of finding a solid
critique of approval voting, but from the quotes I have seen, as well as
the material on his web site (http://www.math.nwu.edu/~d_saari/), I
didn't think I would see much that I could buy into (unless he's saving
his best arguments for paying customers).

I was thinking of replying to Science News, but haven't had time.  Not
that it would take much, I guess.  That mag is written mostly for
entertainment value anyway, same as Discover channel.  But then maybe an
EM war would be entertaining.

Here is another odd quote from the article:

"The worst scheme is the simple plurality vote. In elections in which
voters must select candidates to fill two or more positions, giving the
voters the option to choose any number of candidates up to the full
allotment (approval voting) messes up the results even more."

Is the second sentence just filler, or is someone actually advancing
Borda as a multi-winner method?

Bart



David Catchpole wrote:
> 
> An article misquoting Saari misquoting himself! Awesome! What I would like
> is for us to-
> 
> discuss Saari's books and articles on this list,
> work out (in a way that can be convincing) what misunderstandings of
> Saari's work and mistakes in Saari's work exist, write to Saari and
> attempt to have him account for all this.
> 
> Tall order, I know, but we can only really make an impact if we can haul
> arse together and make it apparent that we know what we're talking about.
> 
> On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Bart Ingles wrote:
> 
> > One particularly inane quote from the article:
> >
> > "if something goes wrong in the Borda count, it will go wrong in every
> > other procedure."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/10_31_98/mathland.htm
> > >
> > > has a summary of an article about voting paradoxes.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the article authors have not defended their observations on
> > > this list.
> >
> >