[EM] Gervase, may I correct you?

[Donald Davison]

Gervase, you wrote:             Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 21:51:29 +0100
"During the thread about how Condorcet can choose a "turkey" candidate (I
think), there were quite a few people who posted how they would rank all
of the various election methods.  However, Donald gave a set of Cardinal
Ratings for the election methods instead.  First came IRV, which got a 10.
Second came Approval, which got an 8."

Thanks,
Gervase.


Donald here, Your letter is another example of someone being misquoted on
the EM list, so what else is new.

It shocked me that I would have placed Approval so close to Irving, so a
search was required, which turned up my original post:

  ------------ Original Letter -------------
From: donald at mich.com
Re: [EM] IRV vs. plurality:
Date: 8 Aug 2003

Irving is head and shoulders better than Plurality.

On a scale of one to ten, Irving is a one and Plurality is a ten.

Condorcet is a five.
Bucklin is a six.
Borda is a seven.
Approval is a eight.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Back in August, I ranked Irving number one, not number ten (number one
being the best).

Plurality was ranked number ten.

But, you got something right when you said that I ranked Approval number eight.

Best I present my rankings in a more graphic form.

    1) Irving
    2) [whatever]
    3) [whatever]
    4) [whatever]
    5) Condorcet
    6) Bucklin
    7) Borda
    8) Approval
    9) [whatever]
   10) Plurality

Note: Even if a blank gets filled in with whatever, it still will not be as
good as Irving.


Donald,