[EM] Re: James: Your Range-Voting comments

[Chris Benham]

In response to a post from  James Green-Armytage, Mike Ossipoff wrote 
 (Wed. Jan.5):

>James--
>
>You wrote:
>
>Range voting is neither a majority rule method...
>
>I reply:
>
>That depends on what you mean by a majority-rule method. You define it below 
>as a Smith-Criterion method, but you mustn't expect others to share that 
>definition. Range-Voting, which I call CR, meets WDSC, which says:
>
>If a majority of all the voters prefer X to Y, they should have a way of 
>voting that ensures that Y won't win, without any member of that majority 
>voting a less-liked candidate over a more-liked one.
>
>[end of WDSC definition]
>
>In most any method a majority has the power to make some particular 
>candidate lose. In CR (including Approval) they can do that without 
>reversing a sincere preference.
>
>When a majority can easily ensure the defeat of a candidate, they can enforce 
>majority rule. CR is a majority-rule method by that reasonable standard.
>
CB: A slightly weaker version might  dispense with the "without any 
member of that majority voting a less-liked
candidate over a more-liked one" qualification.  Is  your  "reasonable 
standard" any more useful than that?
If  a method  (like RV) that fails May's criterion/axiom, Majority 
Favourite, and Majority Loser qualifies as a 
"majority-rule method"; then can you tell us which methods don't?

Brian Olson wrote (Fri.Jan 4):

>Of course, even a 1-100 scale can be so "abused". But if 99 people 
>really vote for their favorite with a "1", and the other guy with a 
>"0", aren't they effectively saying "I don't care (much)"? Why should 
>we be listening to their votes more than they want to be heard?
>
CB: The question on the ballot paper is  "How do you rate these 
candidates?",  not  "How much do want to be heard?".
The voting system should do its best to protect sincere voters from 
being over-ruled  by strategists.  In your example

99* 1.0, 0.0
1* 0.0, 100000000.0

what if the single voter is insincere, and his sincere ratings are 1.0, 0.0  (or even
0.0, 98.99)?

Brian O:

>Since you are talking about an election method that indeed should not 
>be used, who here has proposed using such a method? I expect that the 
>method you are striking down is subtly but crucially different than 
>anything anyone was actually promoting.
>

CB: There were two posts, one by Doug Greene and the other by Warren D.Smith, here at
EM last month, advocating Range Voting "with a range at least as large as 0,20".

http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014301.html

>http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2004-December/014409.html


Chris Benham