CB: A slightly weaker version might dispense with the "without any member of that majority voting a less-likedJames--
You wrote:
Range voting is neither a majority rule method...
I reply:
That depends on what you mean by a majority-rule method. You define it below as a Smith-Criterion method, but you mustn't expect others to share that definition. Range-Voting, which I call CR, meets WDSC, which says:
If a majority of all the voters prefer X to Y, they should have a way of voting that ensures that Y won't win, without any member of that majority voting a less-liked candidate over a more-liked one.
[end of WDSC definition]
In most any method a majority has the power to make some particular candidate lose. In CR (including Approval) they can do that without reversing a sincere preference.
When a majority can easily ensure the defeat of a candidate, they can enforce majority rule. CR is a majority-rule method by that reasonable standard.
candidate over a more-liked one" qualification. Is your "reasonable standard" any more useful than that?
If a method (like RV) that fails May's criterion/axiom, Majority Favourite, and Majority Loser qualifies as a "majority-rule method"; then can you tell us which methods don't?
Brian Olson wrote (Fri.Jan 4):
Of course, even a 1-100 scale can be so "abused". But if 99 people really vote for their favorite with a "1", and the other guy with a "0", aren't they effectively saying "I don't care (much)"? Why should we be listening to their votes more than they want to be heard?CB: The question on the ballot paper is "How do you rate these candidates?", not "How much do want to be heard?".
The voting system should do its best to protect sincere voters from being over-ruled by strategists. In your example
99* 1.0, 0.0 1* 0.0, 100000000.0
what if the single voter is insincere, and his sincere ratings are 1.0, 0.0 (or even 0.0, 98.99)?
Brian O:
Since you are talking about an election method that indeed should not be used, who here has proposed using such a method? I expect that the method you are striking down is subtly but crucially different than anything anyone was actually promoting.
CB: There were two posts, one by Doug Greene and the other by Warren D.Smith, here at EM last month, advocating Range Voting "with a range at least as large as 0,20".
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014301.html
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014409.html
Chris Benham
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
