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

[Juho]

On Aug 10, 2007, at 6:08 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 04:09 PM 8/9/2007, Juho wrote:

>> I used term "sincere" roughly to refer to voters marking their
>> personal candidate utility values in the ballots. Or if you don't
>> like the word "utility" then we can just talk about putting
>> candidates on the value axis without putting any special emphasis on
>> the min and max values.

> So what do I come up with as so-called "sincere" non-normalized  
> Range Votes? Range 100, 50.25% for Gore. Bush is below 50% by five  
> times as much as Gore is above it, so Bush is 48.75%. Rounding off  
> for Range 100, it is Gore 50%, Bush 49%. My sincere votes.
>
> If this is not what "sincere" vote means, please explain what is!

In the light of this example it doesn't matter how the "sincere"  
votes are derived or where they come from. Any method and logic is  
ok. It could be based on terms "sincere" and "utilities", or not. The  
only criterion is technical by nature, i.e. that the voter uses the  
values in some other way than using mostly min and max values.

> So how is this a "bad result"?

In the example the idea of Range electing the candidate that has best  
utility from the society point of view failed. In the example the  
votes were 50% - 50% but Range could ignore also a clear majority  
opinion.

Juho




		
___________________________________________________________ 
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html