[EM] Correction of false statements by Ossipff & Schudy about range voting.

[Warren Smith]

Correction of false statements by Ossipff & Schudy about range voting.

>Ossipoff:
> Say, for the moment, we disregard the fact that the SU claims
>depend on sincere voting, and that sincere voting is nearly always
>suboptimal in RV.

--CORRECTION: SU (social utility) claims do not depend on sincere voting.
One can measure SU for any voter strategic behoavior.

>Warren Schudy in a July 2007 draft paper:
>"Range voting is a generalisation of approval voting where you can give
>each candidate any score
>between 0 and 1. Optimal strategies never vote anything other than 0 or
>1, so range voting
>complicates ballots and confuses voters for little or no gain."
>
>Ossipoff: Warren Schude's statement was correct

--CORRECTION: optimal strategies can vote other than 0 and 1, and
voting 0 or 1 can be suboptimal.

Examples include
http://rangevoting.org/RVstrat1.html
http://rangevoting.org/PuzzlePage.html#prob19

Also, just in the following incredibly trivial total knowledge example
TOTAL FROM OTHER VOTERS:  A=85.4  B=85.5
YOUR VOTE:    A=?  B=?
the vote A=1 B=0 is equally as optimal as A=0.9 B=0.1.
This also falsifies the statement "Optimal strategies never vote anything other than 0 or 1".

I'm surprised nobody could see that was a false statement.
You first want to see if it is obviously false.  It is. 
But if that doesn't work, you want to try a search on rangevoting.org's
search box to find well known facts.


--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html