# [EM] RE : Naive question about Range Voting -- why 0-99 and not 0-100?

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax abd at lomaxdesign.com
Tue Nov 21 13:14:42 PST 2006

```At 03:34 PM 11/21/2006, Monkey Puzzle wrote:
>There is one excellent reason to have either 0-99 or 0-100.  A range
>voting ballot can be interpreted as
>
>     Range Voting
>     Approval
>     Condorcet (Schulze, DMC, CWA, etc.)
>     ER-IRV.
>
>If a range voting ballot is used, I think all of these tabulations
>should be made.  I think it would be eye opening for voters and
>politicians to see just what the alternatives would be, and not get
>locked into a single method.

Sure. However, this is not particularly an argument for increasing
granularity beyond meaning. Using granularity just to express
preference below the digitization level is a waste of resources, if
the level is, say, 0-10.

Generally preference means the most with *first* preference. And you
can answer this problem with a Favorite designation. This would not
give you the option of indicating preference between two candidates
that you rate at 5, both of them, but so what?

Condorcet methods can generally handle equal ratings. They are simple
pairwise abstentions in the races between those with equal ratings,
with expression of preference in all other pairwise races. Not a
problem. It is, essentially, approval voting at a particular level of
preference.

But first preference is another matter. As I've mentioned, the
campaign funding issue is going to have to be faced! And a Favorite
designation handles that.

> >
> > To me, the *real* plan is to push Approval Voting, which is Range
> > 2. (Some argue that Range will, in practice, reduce to Approval
> > anyway, with people voting the extremes; while certainly some people
> > will do this, I don't think this is an argument against Range in
> > itself.)
>
>I agree that Approval would be a good first step toward reform.  I
>simply want to give voters the option of seeing beyond the first step.
>
> >
> > One there is Approval -- which is really very simple to implement,
> > the ballots don't change except for a few words of instruction --
> > then people will want to express more sophisticated votes. I've
> > argued that the first improvement over standard Approval is a
> > Favorite option. It would not be used, necessarily, in determining
> > the winner, but would allow better analysis of results, plus it
> > could be used for campaign finance distributions when they are based
> > on vote counts. (Otherwise Approval votes for a major party
> > candidate may be unreasonably reduced because the voter doesn't want
> > to donate to that party. Plus determining how to distribute funds,
> > without a Favorite, is in itself a thorny problem.
> >
> > How's this for a slogan:
> >
> > Count All the Votes!
>
>It would sound good to anyone who doesn't still hold a grudge about
>Illinois in 1960.
>
>Have a nice thanksgiving, I won't be back till 2007.
>
>MP
>--
>araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com

```