Hi,
On Aug 19, 2005, at 04:05, Warren Smith wrote:
Finally, it has been claimed that I make a lot of "unsupported
statements"
about range voting. (Which itself was an unsupported statement...)
If a list of such statements is brought to my
attention, I will try to back them up. In fact I have already done
so on various occasions and the CRV web site also backs me up
a good deal. But anyhow, whatever statement you find insufficiently
supported, query me on and I'll try to get back
to EM on that statement. I believe everything I say is supported,
... but I am not perfect. Anyhow please let me know. Thank you.
I can't sum up the claims that have been made but I'll summarise my
thoughts. My only complaint is that you seem to have an optimistic view
of range voting and a pessimistic view on Condorcet methods. (This
viewpoint was already mentioned by some others too.) I believe many
people on this list feel that range/rating based methods would be
superior to ranking based methods except that the strategic voting
problems of range/rating reduce their value in contentious elections so
much that we may need to satisfy with the less expressive rating based
methods. Simple as that. I don't attach any good examples of the
vulnerabilities of range/ratings here but I guess they have already
been distributed (or someone will find some good examples if you want
some representative and serious ones to be pointed out).
Best Regards,
Juho
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
