[EM] reply to Heitzig criticzing range voting

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Mon Aug 29 18:17:03 PDT 2005


On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:22:59 +0200 Jobst Heitzig wrote:

> Hello Warren, again.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
>>--well, I really dislike that gimmick.  It seems to me not to solve anything.
>>
> 
> Do you suggest the election system should rather declare one of the
> candidates which are not approved by anyone the winner than to demand a
> new election because of lack of approved candidates. I certainly don't
> agree to that.
> 

Elections should normally always complete without reruns, even if chance 
is needed to resolve a tie (let those who like reruns amend the 
definitions to get as many ties and reruns as please them).

As to the detail discussed above, bad luck can get a slate of candidates 
that deserve it - so can stupidity in nominations and failure to properly 
educate voters.

> 
>>--Not so fast...  I'm not letting you get away with that...
>>CRV recommends 99 for the best candidate, 0 for the worst,
>>which is fact is what any strategic voter would do anyhow...
>>(can interpolate between for the rest).  That causes utilities to be much less of a fantasy.
>>In fact they are now quite real.  
>>
> 
> Why should that be the case? Can you explain to me the difference
> between assigning 64 or 65 points to the middle candidate?
> 
> 
>>I don't think you can object to them now,
>>
> 
> You're wrong: I do :-)
> 
> 
>>or if you can, then I can also object to the idea that A>B when in fact A and B
>>are incomparable objects.  
>>
> 
> Absolutely! I have often argued here that preferences are not linear and
> that we should allow voters to express undecidedness when one of their
> criteria says A>B and the other says B>A, instead of forcing them to
> either vote A=B or weigh their criteria in this case.
> 

Huh?  I keep promoting A=B for voters to be able to be neutral between a 
pair.  I choke on a ballot with contradictions such as A>B together with 
A<B, for then we need a programmable definition as to the meaning to use 
when counting ballots.

> 
>>The only reason we can claim A>B is Util(A)>Util(B).
>>
> 
> No, there is no such thing as Util(A) or Util(B).
> 
> 
>>[And claims that A=B are generically always a lie, so it bothers me when Condorcet
>>advocates enhance their methods by allowing A=B votes.  
>>
> 
> In my view, when voter assigns equal ranks to two candidates, we should
> not interpret this as a statement that both are equivalent but rather as
> a statement that neither is preferred to the other. Writing "A=B" is
> just a handy shortcut on this list, it could also be written "A?B" instead.
> 

If you add new content to the language, such as A?B, then you owe 
attending to this in the language definition.  If the addition has REAL 
value, fine - else let's try for understandable compact definitions.


> 
>>--Well since you insist, I can answer the "why on earth" question using science:
>>A1:  money is additive.  Economists like using it as utility but I do not.
>>But it is anyhow well correlated and important, even to you...
>>
> 
> So you suggest that when candidate A gives $200000 to 1 voter and
> nothing to the other 99 voters, but candidate B gives $1000 to each of
> the 100 voters, then candidate A should be considered best for society.
> That's strange, isn't it?
> 
> 
>>So no, robust measures are not needed with honest voters.  The problem is not
>>non-robustness.  The problem is dishonest voters.  
>>
> 
> What is an honest voter with RV? I would like to honestly assign ratings
> to candidates, but I seem to be too stupid for it, sorry.
> 
> 
>>I often feel like there is some kind of drive to invent more complicated and crazier
>>methods so you can get a PhD, which obstructs the more-deserved attention on the 
>>simplest ones like range.
>>
> 
> I have a PhD already, thanks. And I guess there are better reasons for
> developing election methods than for personal prestige.
> 
> Yours, Jobst

-- 
  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.




More information about the Election-Methods mailing list