Hi, --- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > >I don't really mind if you want to define strategic voting out of > >existence. I don't think it sheds light on anything, though. > > Just because you can't see that light doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > > I have not defined strategic voting out of existence. Range, quite > simply, does not encourage true strategic voting. Reverse rank order > in order to gain a better outcome, *that* is strategic, insincere voting.
But is this all about changing what we mean by the terms "strategic" and "insincere"? Is that the point? > >I mean, it's trivial for me to imagine myself in a Range election with > >a variety of personal ratings for many candidates. Since I personally > >don't vote with enough uncertainty to want to undermine my own voting > >power (going to the polls is enough of an inconvenience), I would vote > >approval-style. And here you're basically saying you have enough > >confidence in me, some random voter, to trust that I must truly care > >deeply about this separation of the candidates into two sets. > > Yes. I think that if you vote Approval style, you are dividing the > candidates into two groups, and you are willing to support one group, > fully, and not the other. It is true that this might not reflect much > care, it might be simple disinterest, insufficient to go to the > effort of rating candidates intermediately. Am I supposed to put extra effort into something just because I can? Kevin Venzke ___________________________________________________________________________ Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses http://fr.answers.yahoo.com ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info