[Election-Methods] would range voting have elected gore in 2000?

[CLAY SHENTRUP]

rob brown still is hopelessly confused, so i'm going to keep trying to
help educate him here.  i would really like to see others jump in and
help him see the light.

> What is incorrect?  I was comparing a hypothetical race A which is Gore vs.
> Bush,  to hypothetical race B which is Gore vs Bush vs. Nader.
> It was obviously hypothetical because in the scenario I was discussing, the
> election used Range voting.

so to clarify for the record, do you or do you not believe that "Nader
would have thrown things to Bush in 2000 with Range just as he did
under plurality"?

it's a simple question, and i see no reason for you to be so evasive,
or act like i've misrepresented what you said.  i quoted you verbatim.

> This kind of thing is why I tire of discussing things with you.  You do this
> over and over and it is tiresome.

pot/kettle

>  for the record:
> > > Nader would have thrown things to Bush in 2000 with Range just as he did
> > > under plurality.  Or with Approval, for that matter.
> > do you stand by this claim, or do you admit that you were mistaken?
> Stand by it.

then you are at odds with pretty much every expert on this subject,
and you are making quite a mockery of yourself by saying this.

> If it is a Range election, and many people prefer Nader to Gore, it is
> inevitable a great many of those will lower Gore's rating in race B compared
> to their rating in race A, to account for their preference for Nader.

you can't get any lower than a zero, which is what the nader voters
gave gore with plurality voting.  but if those 97,488 nader voters had
used range voting, given gore an average of at least 0.550837 more
points than bush (on a 0-10 scale), then gore would have won.  plus
some bush voters would presumably give nader a 0, and adjust gore to
slightly better than 0.

> You acknowledged (in a private email) that even "sincere" range voters are
> expected to give their favorite candidate a 100 and least favorite a zero.

yes.  so a typical sincere nader voter would do something like give
nader a 100, bush a 0, and gore a 55.  a typical strategic nader voter
would give gore a 100 (just like he effectively did with plurality
voting), plus give nader a 100, and give bush a 0.

> So if someone is added to the ballot that you like more than your previous
> favorite....what is going to happen to the rating for the your former
> favorite?  It will go down.  That is vote splitting.  This is not rocket
> science.

now you're arguing something entirely different.  not that nader would
have still thrown the election to bush in 2000, but that with range
voting, plenty of nader supporters who might have given gore a 10 in a
bush-gore race, would give gore a lower score if nader was added.
that would be somewhat countered by the bush supporters who would
_increase_ gore's score after giving nader a 0.  still, maybe that
would not make up the difference, and gore would have done worse with
nader in the race.  but he still would have won.

> Again, as with private email discussion, I have tired of this.  Don't take
> my lack of response to mean I agree with you.  More likely it means I
> reached my limit of nonsense and stopped reading.

it's not an issue of whether you agree, but of whether you understand
the errors in your logic.

CLAY