[EM] range "killing" example and those ignorably-rare burying voters... are you on drugs?

[Warren Smith]

>robla statement #1:
Range is a political stillborn.  This example kills it:
100 voters, two candidates, scale of 0-10:
    90 voters: A=7, B=6
    10 voters: A=0, B=10

    A:630    B:640
B wins, even though 90% of voters prefer A to B.

There is no possible way Range will ever get serious support, given that
weakness.  If it manages to pass constitutional muster, it goes against
what I suspect is the instinct of most voters out there, including
myself.  I cannot be brought to recommend a system that suffers from
such a glaring defect.


>robla statement #2 (made on same day) in response to
| A voter will favorite-bury if, for that voter, the important goal is to keep 
| an unacceptable candidate from winning, and if favorite-burial will increase 
| the probability of accomplishing that.
I posit that very few voters will be in that predicament.  It is my
experience that most voters prefer candidates with a chance to win.
People that like to be part of quixotic movements are exceedingly rare.

--wds response:
let me get this straight.  Robla figures that we need not worry about
these weird rare voters who prefer candidates without a chance to win.
(Incidentally, had Robla been responding more precisely to the given words, he would have
been arguing that voters will rarely bury candidates to prevent them from winning.
This however is simply false because  have done a poll and strategic burying of
either Bush or Kerry to last-place rank, was extremely common in that poll.  But
anyhow, let us continue analysing what Robla actually did say:)
Because we only need to worry about voters who prefer candidates who DO have a chnace to
win, it seems to me obvious that robla must want the plurality voting system.
After all, there are only 2 candidates every time with a chance to win,
and as he said it is permissible to ignore the rare weirdos who feel otherwise,
so let's, and then Robla tells us the only thing that matters is majority vote,
not intensity of opinion (otherwise it that would be a "glaring defect") so just do
a majority vote on the 2 that have a chance to win - which is exacly what plurality does
if we ignore the rare weirdos - and voila.

So Robla has just proven plurality is the best voting system.  I congratulate him
for solving this puzzling conundrum.

---

Can we return to reality please?  Reality is, the plurality voting system has caused tremendous
harm.  Robla's "glaring defect" is actually (a) far less likely to be a concern
than the situation (his stmt #2) that he regards as negligibly important, and 
(b) if it ever happened, which as I said is not likely, then it
would be an "advantage" not a "glaring defect".

Let us consider what would happen were Robla's scenario ever to come to pass.
I shall assume (since Robla is complaining about this) that he is on the losing 630-side
and therefore feels justified in complaing about this vast injustice.
So let's see how it would go.
  Robla:  I just lost the vote! This is a huge injustice!  I demand redress!
  Court:  So Robla, what was your vote?
  Robla: I voted A=7 and B=6.
  Court: So please tell us, Robla, if this is so vast an injustice, why did you not 
     make a stronger A-favoring vote than 1 point?  After all, if just you
     and one other A-voter had done so, you would have won.
  Robla:  Because it is my inalienable right, dammit, to get my way no
      matter how incredibly stupid I act!   Even if I give the merest incredibly minor
      trace of a fart of concern to I favor A, I *MUST* GET MY WAY!!!
      Even if each B voter will be put to death by torture if they lose the vote, each
      of their deaths only counts as much as MY FART!  THIS MUST BE!  IT IS MY RIGHT!
  Court:  Aha.  Yes, your argument is very convincing.  Thank you for showing
      us the error of our ways.  We cannot imagine how this voting system ever got serious 
      support.

wds