[EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.

James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Sun Jan 25 15:50:39 PST 2009

> On Jan 25, 2009, at 12:40 AM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> > What I mean is that it may quite OK
> > to assume that people are able to
> > find some preference order when
> > voting. And therefore we can force
> > them to do so.

How can any such coercion be compatible with participation in a democracy?  It is surely an infringement of my human rights to force
me to express "preferences" I do not have.  As a prisoner, I might confess to almost anything under torture (I don't know - I have
never been tested, thank goodness), but I thought this was about voting in public elections in a democracy?

> Jonathan Lundell  > Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 10:21 PM 
> If we regard the preference order as list of contingent choices (this  
> view has come up in IRV discussions), then the ability to vote in a  
> plurality election implies the ability to produce such a list, ......

Preferences in IRV elections are contingency choices, but I do not see why the ability to pick one winner from the set on offer in a
plurality election in any way implies that I have the ability to produce an ordered list of preferences for those candidates who are
not my favourite.  All I need to know for the plurality election is "they are not my favourite"  -  I do not need to have any
preferences among the non-favourite sub-set.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.13/1914 - Release Date: 24/01/2009 20:40

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list