[EM] range voting - better than Condorcet for purpose of generating Condocet winners...

[Michael Ossipoff]

The strategy problems of winning-votes Condorcet, such as BeatpathWinner or 
Schwartz-Sequential-Dropping, have been greatly exaggerated by those 
methods' opponents. The subject has been much discussed here. The criteria 
SFC and SDSC are about how wv Condorcet gives better freedom from strategy 
concerns than other methods.

I don't reject RV, but RV isn't doesn't even come close to being as 
strategy-free as SSD or BeatpathWinner. We've used Condorcet and RV in polls 
on EM. If you participated in those polls, then you know what I mean.

There isn't time right now to reply point by point.

Mike Ossipoff



>From: wds at math.temple.edu (Warren Smith)
>To: election-methods at electorama.com
>Subject: [EM] range voting - better than Condorcet for purpose of 
>generating Condocet winners...
>Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:58:24 -0500
>
>concerning what happens with an honest+strategic voter mix under range 
>voting:
>
>http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html
>
>the interesting findings include
>1. despite the worry that strategic voters occurring in ways correlated 
>with
>politics might penalize the honest voters, the sim shows that
>range is still top of the heap versus the other voting methods even in
>situations designed to exhibit this effect.
>
>2. except that adding a top2-runoff after range, can and does help
>if the percentage of strategic votes is high enough.
>
>3. Under these circumstances (i.e. 50-50 strategic+honest mix)
>range indeed produces honest-voter Condorcet winners more frequently than
>Condorcet voting methods such as Schulze Beatpaths - which it seems to me
>really hurts them at the most fundamental level.
>
>A web page on range voting criticisms is now available at CRV:
>
>http://rangevoting.org/RVcrit.html
>
>Warren D Smith
>http://rangevoting.org
>----
>election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info