[EM] range voting "passing constitutional muster" / Range's "glaring defect"

[Warren Smith]

An analysis of the constitutional question is already available within the CRV web site
   http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/ConstVt.html
    
Also, re Robla's ludicrous "range killing example" illustrating range's
"glaring defect", let me say this.  You are perfectly free in the range
system to cast a vote indicating your intentional, freely chosen,
expression that you support A over B by a very SMALL favortism.
You are also perfectly free in the range system to indicate you
support A over B by a maximum possible amount.  You can choose to do this
regardless what the rest of your vote says about the non-A non-B candidates,
unlike in many systems such as Borda, where you do not have that option and (once your
ranks for the non-A, non-B candiates are chosen) your votes
for A and B are pre-determined by the Borda system and you cannot
choose them.

OK?  Now Robla then had the incredible gall to COMPLAIN, AFTER he intentionally
chose to give a vote favoring A over B by a tiny amount, despite being in 
no conceivable way forced to, that  A had not won.
I would say this does not illustrate a glaring defect in range voting.  This
illustrates a glaring defect in Robla's thinking.  All Robla had
to do was move his finger 3 inches further and the same from one other voter
like him, in his example, and A would have won.  But no.  They, having traveled
miles to reach the polls and stood on line, did not feel it was worth moving
their finger a few inches further.  Because A vs B really did not matter
to them as much as the effort involved in moving their finger.  That is
fine.  I am happy to see that range permits them to express that opinion honestly.
BUT, I just do not see that Robla, under those circumstances, has any right to
COMPLAIN about the outcome of the election as a "glaring failure of democracy."

wds