On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 07:39 -0600, Adam Tarr wrote: > Scott, > > That would only be true if: > > a) The number of throwaway candidates was EXTREMELY large, so the > difference in Borda between a first and second place vote was > negligible, and >
Only if you want to give identical ranges to a few candidates other than 0. I could be mistaken, but I believe that this is relatively uncommon among range voters - there's usually some use of the range. > b) The "throwaway" candidates could in fact be depended on to be > disqualified independently of the election process. Otherwise, in a > Borda vote one of them could win. > We can depend on this, however, if we allow a large number of write-ins. > Since these two things are generally not true, Range and Borda are not > generally equivalent. > I didn't mean to imply they were. I meant to imply that Range (without equal ratings) was generally equivalent to Borda with a bunch of throwaways ;) It does get you thinking a bit, however. -Scott > -Adam > > On 8/19/05, Scott Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Title more or less says it. Imagine we have range voting from 1 to 20, > > with 9 candidates. Then imagine we have a simple Borda count with 20 > > candidates, 11 of which we can presume are trash - joke write-ins, dead > > candidates, disqualified people, hopeless losers, whatever. The end > > results are the same, including all the nasty stuff we complain about > > Borda counts. > > > > -Scott > > > > > > > > ---- > > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info