[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:
>
> > 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 [arguing that it is a bad thing that range voting 
> > allows voters to intentionally downweight their votes by only 
> > voting within a subrange such as 0-15 not 0-99]
> 
> --Are you seriously contending that voters will not "understand" 
> the strategic fact that the range-voting system causes numerically 
> larger votes to have more power?

Those that are interested in strategy and think about it, probably 
will.
> 
> Suppose you were to ask one: "if you were to vote 5 instead of 3 
> for Kerry, would that cause Kerry to have a better chance of being 
> elected?"  How many do you think would say "no"?

Not many. Some might object that voting strategy and the mechanics of 
how the voting system works doesn't interest them and isn't something 
they should have to think about.
> 
> --And re your earlier remarks [omitted] about my remarks about non-
> voting:
> your claim is voters should have equal power, but not nonvoters 
> (who should have less); that is fine with you, but for some reason 
> combining the two is not ok with you.
> What you do not put into that reasoning is that nonvoting IS a 
> legally allowed form of voting.  I have done it myself.

"Non-voting is a form of voting" sounds like oxymoronic nonsense.

> I go to the polls, and I intentionally do not vote on some issue.
> I therefore downweight my vote to 0 on that issue. 

No. By definition a vote registers some preference between candidates.
You haven't done that, therefore there is no "vote" for you 
to "downweight to zero".

  Intentionally.
> Because I want to.   Even though it is a "contentious issue" and 
> even though
> I have taken the trouble to trvel to the polls. Now you for some 
> reason have no problem with that.  You consider it democratic.

Yes,you can choose to vote or not vote.

> But when I do the same kind of intentional self-downweighting in 
>  range voting, you have a probem with it and say it is undemocratic.

"Not voting" isn't the same as "intentional self-downweighting".
 
Chris Benham

--- End forwarded message ---