Finding the probable best candidate?

[Blake Cretney]

Forest Simmons wrote:

>>
>>
>>Well, there's different ways of answering that question.  However, if we
>>agree that we're trying to select the best candidates possible, and if
>>we agree that voters have some insight into the question of which
>>candidates are better, then it becomes plausible to see an election as
>>using the information provided by voters as evidence toward the question
>>of which candidate is best.
>>
>
>So you are using "best candidate" as an undefined term like the terms
>"point" and "line" in an axiomatic development of geometry.
>
By best candidate I really mean the best candidate.  That is, the 
candidate that would provide the best government.  The candidate we 
should hope the voters would elect.

>>Not 100% reliable evidence, of course, but
>>evidence the method can use to make a guess.
>>
>>That doesn't solve the problem.  But it does give a starting point for
>>arguing about what standards are valuable, and what assumptions are
>>reasonable, and then what procedure is implied from various standards
>>and assumptions.
>>
>
>I think it makes arguments more difficult to resolve.
>
>A definition of "best candidate" in terms of voter utilities, for example,
>would make these arguments easier to resolve. 
>
Perhaps I could just define it as the winner of a plurality election?   
This is just defining the problem away.  

To be fair, an argument can be made that finding the maximum utility 
candidate is a good way to get a best guess for best candidate.  I 
disagree, but that argument can be made.  I do think the point has to be 
argued though, not simply defined as true.

---
Blake Cretney
http://condorcet.org