1- Sincerity doesn't exist in politic. As the vote itself, everything is always strategic. The concept of democracy is to give the same chances to all individuals to influence a collective decision. 2- The range main idea is to give to the voters the possibility to vote for as much candidates as they want to, and the possibility to amplify or diluate their preference. The condorcet methods, because they can't do that, are always leading us to a cycle or a distorsion in the aggregation on preferences. 3- An other idea of the range is to give as much importance to the "preference" as is contrary, the "repulsivity". In many vote system, the voters vote for a candidate because they don't like is main opponent. These systems, which only evaluate the "preference" doesn't give any legitimate credit to the "first" candidate againt a third one. That's why we need a scale, to aggregate the preference as much as the repulsivity. 4- In the example, there is 2 options: Maybe the A electors are dumbs and do not understand anything about politics or mathematics. Maybe they don't care about the results of the election because they consider that the A candidate is not very preferable as the B one. In the both options, they only get what they deserve and the result is totally acceptable in my view. It is also a good protection for the minorities.
5- Kevin Arrow is out of the game since 1975 with the Gibbart-Satervaithe demonstration.Scale of preference and cardinals numbers are a very simple answer to is theorem. Hurray! We don't need a dictatorship! http://swopec.hhs.se/lunewp/papers/lunewp1999_001.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem (Sorry for my english...) Range voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting Voting systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system Yves Dandurand (Montréal) http://forum-mdcq.cjb.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <election-methods-electorama.com@electorama.com> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 7:31 PM Subject: [EM] range "killing" example and those ignorably-rare burying voters... are you on drugs? > > >robla statement #1: > Range is a political stillborn. This example kills it: > 100 voters, two candidates, scale of 0-10: > 90 voters: A=7, B=6 > 10 voters: A=0, B=10 > > A:630 B:640 > B wins, even though 90% of voters prefer A to B. > > There is no possible way Range will ever get serious support, given that > weakness. If it manages to pass constitutional muster, it goes against > what I suspect is the instinct of most voters out there, including > myself. I cannot be brought to recommend a system that suffers from > such a glaring defect. > > > >robla statement #2 (made on same day) in response to > | A voter will favorite-bury if, for that voter, the important goal is to keep > | an unacceptable candidate from winning, and if favorite-burial will increase > | the probability of accomplishing that. > I posit that very few voters will be in that predicament. It is my > experience that most voters prefer candidates with a chance to win. > People that like to be part of quixotic movements are exceedingly rare. > > --wds response: > let me get this straight. Robla figures that we need not worry about > these weird rare voters who prefer candidates without a chance to win. > (Incidentally, had Robla been responding more precisely to the given words, he would have > been arguing that voters will rarely bury candidates to prevent them from winning. > This however is simply false because have done a poll and strategic burying of > either Bush or Kerry to last-place rank, was extremely common in that poll. But > anyhow, let us continue analysing what Robla actually did say:) > Because we only need to worry about voters who prefer candidates who DO have a chnace to > win, it seems to me obvious that robla must want the plurality voting system. > After all, there are only 2 candidates every time with a chance to win, > and as he said it is permissible to ignore the rare weirdos who feel otherwise, > so let's, and then Robla tells us the only thing that matters is majority vote, > not intensity of opinion (otherwise it that would be a "glaring defect") so just do > a majority vote on the 2 that have a chance to win - which is exacly what plurality does > if we ignore the rare weirdos - and voila. > > So Robla has just proven plurality is the best voting system. I congratulate him > for solving this puzzling conundrum. > > --- > > Can we return to reality please? Reality is, the plurality voting system has caused tremendous > harm. Robla's "glaring defect" is actually (a) far less likely to be a concern > than the situation (his stmt #2) that he regards as negligibly important, and > (b) if it ever happened, which as I said is not likely, then it > would be an "advantage" not a "glaring defect". > > Let us consider what would happen were Robla's scenario ever to come to pass. > I shall assume (since Robla is complaining about this) that he is on the losing 630-side > and therefore feels justified in complaing about this vast injustice. > So let's see how it would go. > Robla: I just lost the vote! This is a huge injustice! I demand redress! > Court: So Robla, what was your vote? > Robla: I voted A=7 and B=6. > Court: So please tell us, Robla, if this is so vast an injustice, why did you not > make a stronger A-favoring vote than 1 point? After all, if just you > and one other A-voter had done so, you would have won. > Robla: Because it is my inalienable right, dammit, to get my way no > matter how incredibly stupid I act! Even if I give the merest incredibly minor > trace of a fart of concern to I favor A, I *MUST* GET MY WAY!!! > Even if each B voter will be put to death by torture if they lose the vote, each > of their deaths only counts as much as MY FART! THIS MUST BE! IT IS MY RIGHT! > Court: Aha. Yes, your argument is very convincing. Thank you for showing > us the error of our ways. We cannot imagine how this voting system ever got serious > support. > > wds > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info