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

[Yves Dandurand]

1- Sincerity doesn't exist in politic.  As the vote itself, everything is
always strategic. The concept of democracy is to give the same chances to
all individuals to influence a collective decision.
2- The range main idea is to give to the voters the possibility to vote for
as much candidates as they want to, and the possibility to amplify or
diluate their preference. The condorcet methods, because they can't do that,
are always leading us to a cycle or a distorsion in the aggregation on
preferences.
3- An other idea of the range is to give as much importance to the
"preference" as is contrary, the "repulsivity". In many vote system, the
voters vote for a candidate because they don't like is main opponent.  These
systems, which only evaluate the "preference" doesn't give any legitimate
credit to the "first" candidate againt a third one. That's why we need a
scale, to aggregate the preference as much as the repulsivity.
4- In the example,  there is 2 options:  Maybe the A electors are dumbs and
do not understand anything about politics or mathematics.  Maybe they don't
care about the results of the election because they consider that the A
candidate is not very preferable as the B one.  In the both options, they
only get what they deserve and the result is totally acceptable in my view.
It is also a good protection for the minorities.

5- Kevin Arrow is out of the game since 1975 with the Gibbart-Satervaithe
demonstration.Scale of preference and cardinals numbers are a very simple
answer to is theorem.  Hurray! We don't need a dictatorship!
http://swopec.hhs.se/lunewp/papers/lunewp1999_001.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

(Sorry for my english...)

Range voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting
Voting systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

Yves Dandurand (Montréal)  http://forum-mdcq.cjb.net/



----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren Smith" <wds at euclid.math.temple.edu>
To: <election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com>
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 7:31 PM
Subject: [EM] range "killing" example and those ignorably-rare burying
voters... are you on drugs?


>
> >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
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>