[EM] Unifying behind range is tactically necessary (including for AV & Condorcet advocates)

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:54:59 -0400 Warren Smith wrote in part:

> 
> Range voting is very robustly the best among about 30 systems tried including
> a couple condorcet systems  according to my giant
> comparative Bayesian regret study in 2000.  OK, maybe you can attack that.
> Maybe you can say I did not put in your favorite system or favorite
> voting strategy.  (Some of the systems I am being attacked for, were not even 
> invented at the time I did the study.)   Those attacks don't matter:
> The bottom line is, you should now be convinced range is pretty damn good - even
> if not the tippy top best among all possible systems ever proposed r
> that ever will be proposed, it clearly is in the top few percent - as far 
> as quality is concerned, and it
> does not seem to exhibit any major exploitable weaknesses since
> it scored top in EVERY one of 144 different parameter settings.
> 
Who says this, other than you as inventor bragging about how good you claim your child can run?


What is the definition of range voting?

In the paragraphs I dropped I read that you did Condorcet margins for 
method comparison, while others agree that wv is a stronger contender. 
You also excluded equal ranking - another component of "normal" Condorcet 
that makes it more attractive to many.

> 
> Also range (with single digit scores)
> can be adopted right now on every voting machine in the USA without
> any modification necessary.  The worst you can say is on some machine types
> it would be inconvenient.  (And this adoptibility is false for IRV & Condorcet.)
> 
This is even more of a stretch than many of the sales pitch paragraphs.  How can this be made to happen?

-- 
  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.