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

Paul Kislanko jpkislanko at bellsouth.net
Sun Jul 22 16:28:48 PDT 2007

Steve Eppley wrote in part:
>>Warren Smith's 
example, in which a voter has total knowledge of all other votes before 
casting her own vote, is implausible in the elections we're interested 
in reforming.<<

I might be mistaken, but when I was introduced to this group it was more
about studying methods than "reforming elections." 

Folks who get all on board with election reform when their candidate loses
tend to not discuss things in terms of "methods" but of "practices" and
we're spending an inordinate amount of time on matters that mix voter
behaviour with the mathematics underlying an election method. I've proposed
before that there should be a way to axiomitize the distinctions (I'm not
smart enough to propose one, but I joined the list to learn about how all
the different methods work, not to try to impose one that I like...)

For what it's worth from all I've learned about methods on this list if I
were going to "reform" anything about the mess that is US national elections
I'd pick approval for party primaries and some Condorcet-compliant method
for the general elections. But from my parochial perspective the most badly
broken aspects of US elections aren't related to the choice of election
method - I have first-hand experience with supposedly illegal
dis-enfranchisement. The surest way to win re-election is not to allow your
opponents' supporters the opportunity to vote, and if you can get away with
that then it doesn't matter which method is used to count the votes. 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list