MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACf3dPnOedV-_b=aodG6aX-5M7RzpZ=tZ=wqeKVdst8ehjMOfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <92268044-81E3-4593-980C-4F04280136CD@gmail.com>
 <CAP=UV6p=W=sRQg3a0dPwkun-eBf6uJARR4j4pgTVnHy80q5NyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5499AB82.7040606@lojban.org> <20141223193533.GF23747@mercury.ccil.org>
 <CAP=UV6qm11ZcryM-5FPfBrmE2vjAEL4emry73ePbX=payNakrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141223202825.GG23747@mercury.ccil.org>
 <CAO1AUJPwoi11dZfPxxBTOTa1AsHyztU-840MJknhW3mOxs-33A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141224001728.GI23747@mercury.ccil.org>
 <CACf3dPnOedV-_b=aodG6aX-5M7RzpZ=tZ=wqeKVdst8ehjMOfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 08:41:21 +0900
Message-ID: <CAO1AUJM5=izhzFUdY=_qSY=QgS-0RXbKwkqqabqp11pak5fgdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Board of Directors election; recess
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

Right. Precisely speaking, it is a pseudo-approval voting (and
precisely a vote for zero, as well as a vote for all, is also a wasted
vote in approval voting). For the current election, differently from
approval voting, we are not permitted to vote for all. However, if we
count Bob as selected and Robin as un-selected, a voter in the current
election is substantially permitted to vote for zero to six among
seven candidates. That is the same as approval voting.

2014-12-25 5:43 GMT+09:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
> Is it approval voting? My understanding of approval voting is that one votes
> for as many candidates as one likes, with only a vote for all candidates
> being a wasted vote. Whereas, in the current voting arrangement, I am
> permitted to vote for only six (or seven) candidates, which has the perverse
> result that the more candidates there are -- and more candidates should be a
> good thing, as it increases the chance of best approximating the will of the
> electorate -- the lesser the chances of any candidate being elected by a
> majority.
>
> I would certainly like to elect six rather than three (not counting Bob),
> but I'm not that arsed which six. So I vote for Riley plus whichever other
> five (or six) candidates get the most votes.
>
> And
>
> On 24 Dec 2014 00:17, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>>
>> guskant scripsit:
>>
>> > That is approval voting. In general, range voting (also called score
>> > voting) is better.
>>
>> Unfortunately, my interpretation of our by-laws does not allow it.
>>
>> --
>> John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
>> Not to perambulate the corridors during the hours of repose
>> in the boots of ascension.       --Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Llg-members mailing list
>> Llg-members@lojban.org
>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Llg-members mailing list
> Llg-members@lojban.org
> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members
>

_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members