[EM] Range > Condorcet (No idea who started this argument, sorry; I am Gregory Nisbet)

[Greg Nisbet]

Reasons why Range is better and always will be.
I would like to end the truce.

I'll be generous to the Condorcet camp and assume they suggest something
reasonable like RP, Schulze or River.

Property Related:
favorite betrayal, participation and consistency.
Implications:
1) It is always good to vote and it is always good to rate your favorite
candidate 100. The only Condorcet method to satisfy favorite betrayal is an
obscure variant of Minmax which I'll ignore because of its glaring flaws
(clone dependence *cough*)
2) How does it make sense to be able to divide a region into two
constituencies each electing A if B is the actual winner? Condorcet methods
are not additive, this calls into question the actual meaning of being
elected by a Condorcet method.

answers to potentital majority rule counterarguments:
1) Range voting isn't a majority method.
answer: any majority can impose their will if they choose to exercise it.
concession: it is true that Condorcet methods solve the Burr Dilemma fairly
well because parties can simultaneously compete for majorities and swap
second place votes. Range Voting can at best allow voters to differentiate
between better and worse candidates by one point. So Range's ability to
emulate this behavior is competitive.

I am not aware of another anti-range voting property one could claim that is
applicable to cardinal methods.

Computational Complexity (time):
Range O(c*v)
RP O(c^2*v+c^3) #c^2*v = constucting matrix; c^3 finding local maximum or
generating implications c^2 many times.

Range Voting is more scalable.

Voter Experience:

Range Voting (based on the existence of Amazon product ratings, youtube
video ratings, hotornot.com, the number of movies rated out of stars.) I
cannot find a single instance of Condorcet methods besides elections in
various open source communities. It doesn't qualify as mainstream.

Understandability:

Range Voting (I dare anyone to challenge me on this)

Bayesian Regret:

Range Voting (same comment)

Ballot expressiveness:

    For elections with less than 100 candidates Range voting is more
expressive
    (If anyone thinks about advocating Condorcet for large numbers of
candidates, think again. Sorting candidates is an O(nlogn) problem. AND
that's only if you have O(logn) memory available, otherwise its O(n^2). In
short, you would need to be a genius or have large amounts of time on your
hands to do this properly. Range Voting does not have this problem)
     Expressing apathy: Okay Condorceties, you got me. voter ignorance in
Schulze and RP can be expressed with (somewhat) less bias than Range
Votings- X marks. For those of you who don't believe me, consider the
following thought experiment: I rate Candidate A 70 (which I consider a good
score) and express apathy about Candidate B. I may think 70 is a damn good
score, but this might hurt my cause. I'll call this apathy-participation
failure. In contrast, apathy in Schulze and RP is strictly worse (to the
extent that participation failure allows) than support over ANY candidate.
Think of it this way, let ~ be the apathy comparison; (A > B) > (A ~ B) > (A
< B) in RP and Schulze. Now, the argument could be made for Range Voting
that (A = 100 B = 0) > (A = X B = 0) > (A = 0 B = 100), but this neglects
some important points. In Schulze and RP I am expressing apathy about A
SINGLE COMPARISON. This means I can leave the choice of, say, the two best
members of my party to the members of my party. I can still vote them
superior to all others without bothering to make an internal ranking.
Strictly speaking, Range Voting also somewhat has this property: I could
vote both 100, but the comparison is less explicit and less isolatable and
hence less expressive in this sense.

e.g. A = 100, B = 80, C = X, D = 60, E = 0
If I like A more than B, like C less than B, but am apathetic about C vs D I
am out of luck. Depending on C's average so far, my ballot could influence
the result any number of ways. I need to anticipate in advance what the
average is LIKELY to be.

So... bottom line on apathy.

Bottom line:

Schulze and RP: Precise expression on what exactly it is that you are
apathetic about in such a way that it doesn't spill over into other
comparisons.

Range: You can express apathy, but you take your life in your hands. On the
other hand, your ballot is more expressive

Bottom Bottom line:
Range voting is better for expressiveness (taken as a whole)
Condorcet is better for isolating comparisons, but is less expressive with
each comparison.

Most of these arguments favor Range Voting, there are two (and only two)
that do not:
1) the result of apathy can be unpredicatble in RV
2) a passive majority (one that doesn't exercise its majoritarian might) is
not assured victory.

The rest of the arguments favor Range Voting. Range Voting is victorious.

 If I overlooked something or made an error, please tell me; I'm just a high
school student.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20081011/5078eb98/attachment-0002.htm>