Warren Smith wrote:
Benham: Right. And how does a voter express an "infinitesimal" preference in
the Range 0-99 that you advocate?
--sorry, when I speak of "range voting" in mathematical analysis, I almost
always mean
"continuum range voting" where all real numbers in [0,1] are castable votes.
That is convenient for you, but I've also seen the claim made in
propaganda apparently in support of the version/s of Range
you propose as a practical reform.
http://www.rangevoting.org/
1. Each vote <MeaningOfVote.html> consists of a numerical score
within some range (say 0 to 99 <Why99.html>) for each candidate.
Simpler is 0 to 9 ("single digit range voting"). Voters may also
indicate "X" <Blanks.html> or "NO OPINION" <Blanks.html> if they
have no opinion about a candidate. Such votes don't affect that
candidate's average.
UNAFFECTED BY CANDIDATE CLONING: <CandCloning.html> Consider the
situation where A has "clones" A_2 and A_3 . In the old "plurality
voting <Plurality.html>" system, the clones "split the vote" and lose.
In the "Borda voting <rangeVborda.html>" system, a party assures
victory merely by running enough clones. In contrast, in Range voting,
A is neither harmed nor helped. No more bitter enmity <Enmity.html>
between alike candidates
As far as I am concerned, restriction to discrete sets such as {0,1,...,99} is
not really a good idea and is only done for reasons of practicality (interface
with
old voting machines, etc). I therefore prefer it if more and more 9s are
allowed. There is some
reason to believe (in fact, precisely the sort of reason Benham speaks of) that
about six 9s
may be desirable.
I can see how by this trick you achieve Strong FBC and your special
version of Clone Independence (ICC).
Chris Benham
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
