Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dugway, post: 5098401, member: 13446"] [I][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]"This suggests a quite resaonable starting five of, [/COLOR][/I][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)][I]Paige, Jana, Ash, KK, [/I][/COLOR][I][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]Ice" -Bone Dog[/COLOR][/I] Absolutely agree with you Bone Dog, even would go so far as to say these are the probable starting five. But you see what we did to get to this reasonable starting five? We elevated the #6 vote receiver up over the #5, in order to make it 'reasonable'. Without that change, no, it is not reasonable! Thank goodness we have a head coach who gets to make that reasonable alteration; Rank Choice doesn't allow for that in governmental voting. [I][COLOR=rgb(65, 168, 95)]"And yet research has clearly shown that Ranked Choice is a superior way of voting and produces outcomes more in line with what voters actually want." -Vowelguy[/COLOR][/I] [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]In countries where there are a dozen prominent political parties to choose from that produce a candidate pool of thirty which need to be reduced down in a primary, yes, I believe that Rank Choice may be the best. In the USA, with two prominent parties, and a very small minority of "[B]Anything[/B] but these two!", it yields unreversible anomalies / outliers, similar to what we have in this poll.[/COLOR] [COLOR=rgb(65, 168, 95)][I]"The top 5 right now is a 4-guard lineup, which seems unlikely to me." [I]-Vowelguy[/I][/I][/COLOR] [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]Yup.[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach