[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/7/8 Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>

> On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh.
>
> I think that people on this list are smart, but this is pathetic. I don't
> mean to be hard on Dave in particular. But why is it impossible to get any
> two of us to agree on anything? I want to make a list of systems which are
>
>

> 1. Commonly agreed to be better than approval.
>
> Oops, I meant plurality.

>
>
>
> We pretty much agree that approval is a step up from plurality - but most
> of us agree that we want a bigger step - but have trouble agreeing how to do
> that.
>

It's not an irrevocable choice, it's just an endorsement. It would be great
news if ANY good system were tried in a real, high-stakes single-winner
election.


>
>
>
> .     SODA - for trying, but seems too complex.
>>
>
> I disagree, but I'm biased. I feel that "approve any number of candidates
> or let your favorite candidate do it for you; most approvals wins" is easy
> to understand. But I can understand if people disagree, so I'm not
> criticizing this logic.
>
>
> Your favorite candidate for, hopefully, getting elected is not necessarily
> one you would trust toward getting a good substitute elected.
>
>
Agreed, although they would be worth trusting more often than not. But the
point of SODA is that it's optional; if you don't trust them, don't delegate
to them.

>
>
>> .     Reject Approval - too weak to compete.
>>
>
> Worse than plurality????????
>
>
> No - but we should be trying for something better.
>

Sure, try for the best. But support everything better than what we have.
Because no system will ever be a consensus best, but many systems are
consensus better.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110708/d20ad926/attachment-0004.htm>