[EM] sincerity in range votes / and fantasies

Rob Lanphier robla at robla.net
Tue Oct 4 14:28:23 PDT 2005


On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:26 -0400, Warren Smith wrote:
> I also point out that Robla on a previous occasion agreed that RV was a good system
> and, if I recall correctly said he would be "dancing in the streets" were it 
> enacted.   However, yesterday he said he could "never support it"
> in view of its "glaring defects."     This behavior seems compatible
> with the theory that he is "on drugs"...   but probably it is simply a mater
> of robla's priorities getting a little skewed by a little too much exposure to
> the EM nerdworld, and after some reconsideration perhaps he will regain his
> senses.

I'll retract the "dancing in the streets" part.  Since I personally know
roughly how to deal with RV's strategy problems, I would find it
acceptable and preferable to plurality if there weren't political
considerations.  The more I think about the potential problems, the less
I like the system, but learning how to vote in the system is an
intellectually interesting problem I could cope with if this were only a
personal issue.  

However, there are political considerations, and it's not just a
personal issue.  Range has the potential to greatly set back the cause
of electoral reform, due to the possibility that good systems will get
painted with the same brush as Range.  Moreover, in case you plan to use
my lukewarm personal preference of Range over Plurality against me
later, I'll state for the record that I reserve the right to find Range
voting even more repulsive than I do today.

I've seen a lot of different definitions of the "majority criterion",
but for purposes of this email, I'll describe a minimal version:
"If a strict majority of the voters rank a particular alternative as
their unique first choice, then the voting method must select that
alternative as a unique winner" (Anderson, 1994)

This seems like a very minimal litmus test for mainstream acceptability
of a voting system.  Plurality, IRV, and all Condorcet variants meet it.
Approval arguably meets it, in that the only way to "rank" a single
candidate as a unique first choice is to bullet vote.  Range does not.

Incidentally, Range voting wouldn't have prevented slavery.  Black
suffrage was a pretty important prerequisite which didn't exist back
then.  Also, I don't think that a bunch of people who were willing to
secede from the union and fight a war on their own soil would express a
mild preference for slavery in a Range vote.

I honestly can't believe I'm rewarding your ad hominem attack with a
response.  I'll endeavor not to make the same mistake twice.

Rob

Footnote:
Anderson, 1994: Research draft by L. Bruce Anderson titled "How To Take
Votes: New Ideas on Better Ways to Determine the Winners", March, 1994.





More information about the Election-Methods mailing list