Originally posted by PalynkaI see your point, but I guess my first question had more to do with original intent of whatever method of voting system applied. As long as the results are consistent with the the intention of those employing the method in the first place, I would think such a system is fair--- even if it doesn't necessarily appear balanced.
No. The theorem states that no voting system is fair in the above sense. Have you read about Condorcet's voting paradox? It's a good illustration of one of the problems with voting systems, although AIT is more general.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course "fair" is a moral concept and so as a non-cognitivist I can only really accept that criticism.
I see your point, but I guess my first question had more to do with original intent of whatever method of voting system applied. As long as the results are consistent with the the intention of those employing the method in the first place, I would think such a system is fair--- even if it doesn't necessarily appear balanced.
Still... I think that the intent of a voting system is to find a way to aggregate political preferences. The theorem simply states that this has important flaws which would probably contrast with typical notions of fairness that people assign to voting systems.
Arguing that people actually want to have a voting system that is equivalent to a dictatorship or that they want it to depend on irrelevant alternative hypotheses seems pedantic.
Originally posted by expuddlepiratewrong. when I read your post a little green monster leapt from the screen of my laptop and force-fed me a live penguin. 😞
This vote, should it pass, will effect the lives of the men, women of the greater RHP comunity; young and old alike. This day will be marked in th annals of this fine site's history as never before and we can say we were there when it happened, firsthand wittnesses to the event.
(Paid for by the citizens for the yes vote. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.)
Originally posted by Very Rustynot necessarily. the problem is that we haven't had a president that was worth a damn since reagan (who was, in fact, one of the greatest we've ever had).
People in the U.S. vote in a President, then spend the next 4-8 years complaining about that president, while voting him in to a second term after 4yrs...Go Figure~!
Originally posted by expuddlepirateYour post said not one word on the subject of the vote. I read through it 4 times and found it to be nothing but empty words, addressing not one single shred of subject matter.
This vote, should it pass, will effect the lives of the men, women of the greater RHP comunity; young and old alike. This day will be marked in th annals of this fine site's history as never before and we can say we were there when it happened, firsthand wittnesses to the event.
(Paid for by the citizens for the yes vote. No animals were harmed in the making of this post.)
As for me and my vote, it is a strong solid NO !
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryActually being a youngster, you wouldn't remember John F. Kennedy. He would be the best President you have had in the last Century!
not necessarily. the problem is that we haven't had a president that was worth a damn since reagan (who was, in fact, one of the greatest we've ever had).
