<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 29px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div dir="ltr">I said that Plurality only lets you rate one candidate. That isn't true. You're still rating all of the<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>candidates in Plurality, but you're required to bottom-rate all but one of them.</div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>Looking ahead, Plurality lets the voter present a small amount of information; Approval a bit more; and Condorcet additional - each such as the previous methods do not permit.<br><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 29px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div dir="ltr"> <br>So Plurality doesn't have a _lack_ of information. It has forced falsification of informtion.<br> <br>It should be pretty obvious that that can't be desirable. And it shouldn't be surprising, the<br>adverse societal consequences of it.<br> <br>Approval is such a simple, minimal change that there can be no question that Approval is<br>an improvement on Plurality, and only an improvement.</div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>Agreed that Approval allows approving more than one, and that each approved is preferred over each unapproved, just as the one approved in Plurality is preferred over all others.<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 29px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div dir="ltr"> <br>That can't be said for Condorcet or Kemeny, or any other rank method or complex method.</div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>Now it is time to be more careful.</div><div><br></div><div>In Condorcet if I give one rank to all I prefer I have given the same preference to those ranked over those unranked as I could do with Approval's approving.</div><div><br></div><div>But ability to use multiple ranks in Condorcet or Kemeny gives me additional power - among the ranked candidates my preferences can be unequal and I show this by ranking higher each that I prefer over other ranked candidates. </div><div><br></div><div>Condorcet perhaps should be described as a family of election methods, usually agreeing as to details such as winner chosen - such as Kemeny.<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 29px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div dir="ltr"> <br>I don't know anything about Kemeny's properties, and I was just asking what it does with the<br>2nd set of rankings in my previous posting, and whether or not it passes FBC. I don't claim to<br>know Kemeny's properties.</div></div></span></blockquote><div><br></div>"2nd set" implies misunderstanding - in the Condorcet family voters are normally permitted to use more than two rank values.</div><div><br></div><div>"FBC" is simply one of many acronyms for which definitions are hard to find (and to verify having found correctly).<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 29px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div class="hmmessage" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Tahoma; "><div dir="ltr"> <br>Ask some people, some members of the public, what they think of various proposed methods.<br> <br>Mike Ossipoff</div></div></span></blockquote><br></div><div>DWK</div><br></body></html>