[EM] Re: To Chris, about Range Voting

[RLSuter at aol.com]

To Chris Benham:

I have problems with your comment quoted below, for reasons
other than that it's insulting. First, your example has zero value as
a practical scenario. Who is talking about 3-voter elections here?
Second, the probability that even three voters would vote this way
is very low, and the probability that 15 million would vote these two
ways is exactly zero. Third, I'm aware of the problem you're trying
to address with this example, which is why in the voting instructions
I proposed voters would be asked what their most-preferred
candidates are, and either those candidates would automatically
receive the highest possible rating or, at minumum, voters would
be advised that if they really do prefer one or more candidates
over all the others, their best strategy is to give the candidate(s)
they prefer the highest rating. I'm inclined to think that each voter's
most-preferred candidate(s) should automatically receive the
highest ranting, but it wouldn't bother me if voters were permitted
to rate their most preferred candidates in whatever ways they
wanted to provided they are given good information about the
strategy implications of doing so. With that proviso, I agree
with Mike Ossipoff.

Finally, please understand that I'm not advocating or defending
range voting. Right now, I still trying to decide whether it is
a voting method that should be seriously considered for at
least some voting situations as an alternative to plurality and
IRV (which today are the only two methods that more than a
very small percentage of U.S. citizens are even aware of).

-Ralph Suter

In a message dated 1/8/05, chrisbenham at bigpond.com wrote:

> CB: If   the 99  voters  don't  "want to be heard", then why are they 
> bothering to vote?   Take this example:
>
> 2:  A7, B6
> 1:  B100, A0.
>
> (Ralph Suter can multiply these numbers by 5 million, if that will make 
> him happy.)  The two A supporters are very
> religious, and they have resolved to reserve the maximum possible rating 
> of 100 for the second coming of  Jesus Christ
> and the lowest possible rating of 0 for  the anti-Christ.