On 2/20/08, Jorge Arroyo <trozo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think it'll be difficult to find a fair system for such a small group of > voters. It's not quite clear what you mean by fair (as that's subjective) but I agree. Sadly, I don't believe anyone has the inclination to have a drawn out discussion until we reach a group concensus. > > While it's true that one person's vote can have a large influence on > > the order of victory, it isn't obvious to me that that is inherently > > bad. Isn't the point of voting that each person be heard? Under that > > theory isn't it a good thing that one person can make a difference? > > All right. Let's apply it to a presidential election. Would you say a voting > system is good if no matter what everyone does, I can decide with my vote > who actually wins? Would you say it's fair? Of course not, but that's not what's being discussed. You're comparing New York City to a big apple. They are similar only in name. > If you can't trust the ranking system to be fair, then what's the point? I think that the winner of the competition was the entrant who was most favorable to all who cast their votes. I have absolute faith in this fact. The results are unstable*, but fair. -- - |) () /\/ *by which I mean another vote or two could have had drastic consequences