[EM] cyclic ballots

Paul Kislanko kislanko at airmail.net
Mon Sep 6 17:03:43 PDT 2004

OK, I give up. This board is too hard to use and there's no one on it who
cares about any opinion but their own. 

Y'all have a nice life, but don't expect any of us real people to adopt any
of your proposals.

-----Original Message-----
From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of
James Green-Armytage
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 6:53 PM
To: Paul Kislanko; election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] cyclic ballots

	Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think that you are genuinely
to many of the messages which you are ostensibly replying to. In this
case, you continue to speak about axiology when my post was about
addressing practical problems. Hence, it's a non-reply.


>Only problem is no one has made a case against Jobst's original suggestion
>that any method that depends upon pair-wise comparisons should allow
>pair-wise input. 

>The "social choice" theorists only say "I don't like them" and there's no
>argument against that.
>Prove that you can infer my pair-wise choices from my ranked ballot, if
>want to use my ranked ballot to populate a pair-wise matrix.
>It can't be done. So just allow the voters to explicitly input their
>pair-wise preferences.
>This is not rocket science.

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

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list