[EM] Cycles in sincere individual preferences

[Paul Kislanko]

AMEN! 

-----Original Message-----
From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of
Jobst Heitzig
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:34 PM
To: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Cycles in sincere individual preferences

Just a summary of my opinions (in case anyone misunderstood):

1. Incomplete or even individual prefs are no problem for most methods.

2. Whether some set of individual prefs is rational or logical doesn't
matter.

3. We should not restrict freedom of preference expression without need.

4. Methods based on pairwise comparisons should ask the voter for:
pairwise comparisons, of course.

5. Expressing that some pairwise preference is more important than some
other pairwise preference could be allowed as long it does not become
mandatory.

6. I did not understand a word of what Craig wrote, perhaps because I'm
not a native speaker of the english language.

Jobst

----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info