email9648742 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 31 19:13:30 PDT 2016
So it's like Approval, except that you can vote for each candidate to have
some particular final score.
But pulling the candidate toward a particular final score reminds me of MJ.
What makes XA do that more effectively than MJ? What's the main advantage
that distinguishes how XA does that from how MJ does it, or the results,
from the voters' strategic standpoint?
Say someone gives Jill 100, and Hillary 70. Is that voter reliably voting
for Jill to beat Hillary? I guess if Jill only ends up with 60, and you've
drawn Hillary up to 70, then you've helped Hillary beat Jill.
If you want Jill to beat Hillary, then shouldn't you just top-rate Jill &
bottom-rate Hillary, just as in Approval or Score?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Rob LeGrand <honky98 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> > "With XA, when you assign a number, it isn't just a merit-rating.
> > "If you write ".9" next to a candidate's name, you're saying that you
> > for .......to........"
> Here's my attempt:
> You have 1 point that will be given to or withheld from each candidate,
> fully or partially. If you assign a candidate a rating of x, your 1 point
> is given to or withheld from the candidate in whichever way makes their
> final average closest to x.
> Rob LeGrand
> rob at approvalvoting.org
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods