Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!sloane From: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: CfD: Interest Groups Surveys Message-ID: <22310.25e15e74@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> Date: 20 Feb 90 21:12:52 GMT References: <22196.25d2eed0@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <22212.25d6c149@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <77031@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <22242.25da835b@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> <-UV1G9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net> Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services Lines: 21 In article <-UV1G9Fxds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <1783@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >> Not only that, STV is a lose. Something that is everyone's 2nd choice >> can be eliminated. > > And any other voting scheme is also susceptible to voting paradoxes. > If you only eliminate names at the top level that becomes very unlikely. I guess I must have missed something. What are the voting paradoxes associated with preference voting? > When it works, which is almost all the time, it does the best job of > any alternate system at finding the most desirable name (as opposed to > pereference voting, which gives you the least undesirable name). Wouldn't the "least undesirable name" also be the least controversial? I think we should be looking for the name that is acceptable to the most people. THAT is what PV gives you. -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444