[EM] replies to Ossipoff re Range Voting; explanation of latest RV results

[Warren Smith]

>WDS: In IEVS, presently, equal rankings are forbidden in rank-order methods.
>MO: which (like Warren's other assumptions) makes the results meaningless.

--WDS: While I agree it would be nice if IEVS did equal rankings, and I plan to make
a future version do that,
(a) I do not agree I ever made any "assumption" here.
I simply described the status of IEVS.  I did not "make an assumption."
(b) I do not agree every result in the universe that concerns rank order voting methods
is "meaningless."

>MO: If Warren wants to make RV look good, then he'd be
well-advised to not compare it to Condorcet. Continuing to do so will only
make RV look really shabby.

--WDS: I resent any implication that my goal with IEVS is to "make RV look good."
My goal is to investigate data and compare voting methods, as opposed to figuring I have
all the answers at the outset.

>Abd: One thing that Warren's work seems to have done is to answer the common
objection to Range that sincere voters will be harmed by strategic voters.
> MO: No he hasn't... It's obvious that [Smith is wrong].

--WDS: I believe Abd was referring to the following:
   http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html

--WDS: finally, I said I would explain why, in certain parts of the parameter space,
IEVS now finds that RV does worse than Condorcet methods.  I believe I have a pretty good
understanding of that now and you can read it at
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/message/3501

I plan some further experiments which should shed some light on how common this is...

Warren D Smith
http://rangevoting.org