[EM] Reply re: standards

[Elisabeth Varin/Stephane Rouillon]

> > Do I have to try to explain why you believe that there's a genuine
> > objective
> > absolute best candidate? Obviously that belief of yours has great
> > influence on your standards, since your main standard is finding
which
> > candidate is most likely to be that genuine objective absolute best.

> > I don't know why you believe that.
>
>But you would agree that either there is, or there isn't an absolute
>best candidate, even though we don't agree on which one is the case.  A

>standard based on finding this candidate makes sense only if there is
an
>absolute best candidate to be found.  So, in fact, there is, at least
in
>this case a way of judging standards that is based on objective truth.

When I listen to both of you, you do make sense.
There is (at least one) an absolute best candidate,
but it sometimes lead to a high under representation of the electorate
will.
Maybe an election should be more considered as a representation exercise

and not a sport game.
So finding the best scores to each candidate could be more efficient
than just identifying the winner.

I believe the best representative set does not include only winners,
not even all the winners...

Stéphane Rouillon.