[EM] why 0-99 in range voting

[Juho]

On Nov 22, 2006, at 19:10 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> It is only with isolated polls, what we call elections, that the
> various complications arise. Fixing a winner from a poll is
> inherently flawed. I do not believe that the flaw is remediable,
> though certainly better methods can limit the possibility of a  
> serious problem.
>
> (There is no problem if a majority prefers or approves of the winner,
> problems only arise when a winner does not enjoy majority support.
> This, then represents minority rule, no matter how you slice it, if
> the election is accepted merely on the basis of election results.)

Wouldn't it be quite safe to e.g. arrange a Range poll/election and  
then declare the winner if there is a winner that is at the same time  
a Range winner, a Condorcet criterion winner and an IRV winner? If  
all these three criteria are met, maybe nobody would complain, and  
there would be no need to use strategic votes in the initial Range  
poll/election. If some of the conditions are not met, then the Range  
poll/election would be called just a poll, no winner would be  
declared, and further discussions/voting would be needed.

Juho Laatu

	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html