[EM] Fwd: Re: Why Utility is more important than "transvestite Inversion Property" - reply to Venzke, Gilmour

[cbenhamau]

--- In RangeVoting at yahoogroups.com, "cbenhamau" <cbenhamau at y...> 
wrote:


--- In RangeVoting at yahoogroups.com, "warren_d_smith31" <wds at m...> 
wrote:
> 
> I repeat. Right now, your neighbor can (and probably often 
> does) not vote at all.  
> He therefore has a weaker effect on the election
> than you.  According to what you just said, therefore,
> this has no place in a democratic society.  So I assume 
> you regard it as undemocratic that voting is not compulsory?  
> 
> Or - Assuming you regard it as democratic, then how do you
> reconcile these two stances?  And even if voting were compulsory,
> your neighbor could still effectively abstain by voting
> for a no-hoper.  So again, according to your logic
> this is completely undemocratic and he should therefore be forced
> to vote for a major candidate in order to force his vote to have 
> equal effect to yours.
> 
> I suggest to you that following your own logic to its
> conclusion leads to absurdity. Therefore your logic was wrong.

No. James Gilmour was talking purely about the power of votes cast by
voters. No-one was making the absurd suggestion that non-voters should
have as strong an "effect on the result" as voters.
> 
> Meanwhile... Your neighbor can with range voting
> intentionally vote on an 0-10 range while you vote 0-50.
> He also can vote on the full 0-50 scale.  There is nobody,
> certainly not me, forcing him to behave in either way.
> So it is simply ludicrous to say I am, by giving him
> this option, somehow being undemocratic. 

The voting system should allow and encourage voters to express 
preferences between the candidates, and should try not to reduce the
clout of voters who do just that and not think about "strategy". 
> 
> On the contrary I am letting him do what he wants to do and
> if he wants to vote with less weight than you, then
> you certainly should not object, and nor should society either
> since it leads to greater social utility if he is an
> idiot and knows it and therefore wants to go for low weight.
> I am being more democratic.

In important contentious political elections, it isn't plausible that
a voter who takes the trouble to turn up to vote really "wants" to 
have less voting power than other voters.
> 
> Trying to insist your neighbor do what he does not want to in
> an effort to hurt society, is what would be undemocratic.

Arguably allowing voters who don't completely understand the voting
system and/or aren't interested in voting strategy to harm their own
interests is what would "hurt society".

Chris Benham
>

--- End forwarded message ---