[Election-Methods] Response to Schudy re Range vs Approval voting

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:44 PM 8/7/2007, Juho wrote:
>On Aug 7, 2007, at 23:13 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> > Giving someone rating points is giving them votes. Range 100 is
> > like having 100 votes, to cast in an Approval election. If Range
> > gives some putative advantage to "strategic voters," so too does
> > Approval, to blocks of same. It is an imaginary objection to Range,
> > accusing it of fomenting what other methods *require*.
>
>Approval doesn't give the voters any other alternative but to use the
>min and max values. If one wants to describe Range in a way that
>avoids the problems of giving strategic/exaggerating voters more
>power then it is best to describe it like you did, as an Approval
>like election with option to use also less powerful values than the
>(generally used) min and max values are.

But that is what Range is!

Does the method change based on how we describe it?

Absolutely, someone could describe Range, on a ballot, in a way that 
would encourage voters to waste their vote. Consider it an 
intelligence test. If you see through this defective advice, your 
vote will count for more!

But I would never support such a description being on a ballot. The 
description should inform the voter how the voter's marks will be 
used. One of the descriptions that has been suggested (by me?) is 
precisely that "You have 10 votes, and you may cast as many of them 
as you like for a given candidate, without any restriction on how 
many you cast for another candidate. The winner will be the candidate 
with the most votes. For each candidate, mark the position on the 
ballot corresponding to the number of votes you wish to cast for that 
candidate."

That's Range 10.