On Aug 2, 2007, at 16:38 , Warren Smith wrote:
W.Schudy:
Summary: I believe it's better to force everyone to vote
strategically
(approval) than to give power to the candidate whose supporters
have the most black and white, polarized view of the world.
If range voters max and min the two perceived-frontrunner
candidates, then they gain almost all the strategic advantages
of approval voting, while still allowing quite a lot
of honesty concerning other candidates.
*2. So for example, if
49% voted Bush=99, Gore=0, Nader=53(avg), and
49% voted Gore=99, Bush=0, Nader=53(avg), and
2% voted Nader=99, Gore=20, Bush=0
then Nader would win.
This structure is a realistic possibility that totally contradicts the
assertion RV
"gives power to the candidate whose supporters
have the most black and white, polarized view of the world."
In this case, Nader is winning despite a severe lack of polarized
Nader supporters.
How about other strategic opportunities like 10 Gore supporters
giving Nader 0 points (instead of 53) and thereby making their
favourite (Gore) the winner?
Juho
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
