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

[Dave Ketchum]

Warren is investing significant effort in simulations - GREAT, for there 
is hope for learning something useful with such.

BUT, Warren is CLAIMING be making valid comparisons among methods via the 
simulations.  When we find that there are differences between the 
simulated voting and real voting, the claimed results of the simulations 
become suspect:
      HOW NEAR do the simulations come to being valid measures?  The bit 
about voting equal liking is just one difference that needs evaluating as 
part of evaluating the simulations.

As to equal rankings being permitted in real elections:
      For Condorcet the counting is simple and many of us want to permit 
this feature for voters, though there is debate as to whether to permit it 
and what to do about counting.
      For IRV deciding on rules for counting discourages permitting such.

I DO NOT buy the claim that permitting equal ranking makes ranked methods 
close to Approval, for the heart of these methods is the ability to do 
UNequal ranking.

How does a voter decide whether to rank equally, assuming the method 
permits this?  That is up to the voter, who will sometimes see two 
candidates as equally worthy and then be thankful for being able to vote 
accordingly.

DWK

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:52:33 -0500 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 12:41 PM 2/10/2007, Warren Smith wrote:
> 
>>>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."
> 
> 
> I have a policy of not replying directly to Ossipoff, there is a 
> history of endless debate that turns over details of "you said," and 
> "I said," endless argument that goes nowhere.
> 
> Here Warren noted in his post that IEVS did not presently allow equal 
> rankings. He was listing this as a shortcoming of IEVS. Ossipoff 
> apparently turned this into an assumption that there was something 
> defective about equal rankings. Warren is correct. He simply 
> described the status of IEVS, which has not yet been programmed to 
> allow equal rankings in ranked methods.
> 
> The charge that his results are therefore "meaningless" is, well, 
> silly. Many implementations of ranked methods don't allow equal 
> ranking, in the real world. Yes, as Ossipoff points out, most of us 
> would prefer equal ranking (which actually turns ranked methods into 
> something closer to Range, or at least to Approval). But programming 
> equal ranking is trickier, if you are using issue space analysis to 
> determine votes. At what level of preference do you decide to rank 
> equally? Or what other factors influence the use of equal ranking? It 
> is actually a *lot* more complex.
> 
> And, yes, it is necessary for Warren's results to have wider 
> application. But they are not at all "meaningless" as they stand.
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.