[EM] range ballots chew up slots; "unsupported" range voting claims

[Juho Laatu]

Hi,

On Aug 19, 2005, at 04:05, Warren Smith wrote:

> Finally, it has been claimed that I make a lot of "unsupported 
> statements"
> about range voting.  (Which itself was an unsupported statement...)
> If a list of such statements is brought to my
> attention, I will try to back them up.  In fact I have already done
> so on various occasions and the CRV web site also backs me up
> a good deal.  But anyhow, whatever statement you find insufficiently
> supported, query me on and I'll try to get back
> to EM on that statement.  I believe everything I say is supported,
> ...  but I am not perfect.   Anyhow please let me know.  Thank you.

I can't sum up the claims that have been made but I'll summarise my 
thoughts. My only complaint is that you seem to have an optimistic view 
of range voting and a pessimistic view on Condorcet methods. (This 
viewpoint was already mentioned by some others too.) I believe many 
people on this list feel that range/rating based methods would be 
superior to ranking based methods except that the strategic voting 
problems of range/rating reduce their value in contentious elections so 
much that we may need to satisfy with the less expressive rating based 
methods. Simple as that. I don't attach any good examples of the 
vulnerabilities of range/ratings here but I guess they have already 
been distributed (or someone will find some good examples if you want 
some representative and serious ones to be pointed out).

Best Regards,
Juho