[EM] RV comments

[Juho]

On Jul 21, 2007, at 8:05 , Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

> At 11:00 PM 7/20/2007, Chris Benham wrote:

>> I think Warren Schudy put it well 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."
>
> Good. Since this is simple, clear, and false, we should be able to
> dispose of it quickly. I actually gave an example,

The description of Warren Schudy is clear and compact. If there are  
some corrections to it, it would be nice to get them defined in some  
equally compact format.

I can see that in some cases, e.g. when some candidates can not win,  
they could get also other than min and max ratings. But also in these  
cases the voter may want to either maximize or minimize the number of  
points they will get. And there are cases where the probabilities  
make it possible to give some intermediate values without losing  
voting power.

I also think that Range is a good method in non-contentions polls and  
elections. But in the statement above a competitive election was of  
course the assumption.

And there are some minor things in the description, e.g. Range is  
typically defined as having only a fixed number of possible ratings,  
not any value between 0 and 1.

But isn't t so that the description above is a quite valid  
description as a main rule for competitive elections (where we want  
all voters to cast votes of similar strength). If someone has as  
exact and compact formulations (to fix this one or to propose a new  
one) on where and how Range works please put them forward.

Juho



		
___________________________________________________________ 
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html