[EM] reply to Gilmour attack on range voting & social utility; CCd to RangeVoting

[James Gilmour]

Smith Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:35 PM
> Exactly wrong!  Social utility is THE overriding goal which 
> trumps and encapsulates all else.

On this point we shall have to disagree.  Just because you express your liking for A and your dislike for B more
strongly than I do, does not mean your vote should count for any more than mine, or than anyone else's, when we are
asked to choose between candidates A and B to be our representative.  You may be more upset than I am when B wins, but
that does not give you any right for your vote to have a greater effect than mine in determining the outcome.


> Fifth and finally, consider, say, IRV (Instant Runoff 
> Voting).  IRV often ignores much of your vote.  For example 
> if you vote ABCD, it is entirely possible that your 
> preference C>D will be ignored, 

Please do not interpret this as my arguing for IRV over any other single-winner voting system, but it is obvious from
your comments that you do not understand the basic philosophy behind such preferential voting systems.  The preferences
after the first are contingency choices, to be brought into operation only if needed.  Of course, a totally different
interpretation is put on the marks on the paper if you start from a social choice perspective.  But that's not where IRV
came from.

James Gilmour