[EM] "Meaning" of a vote (or lack thereof)

[Warren Smith]

>Lundell:
>     How does it keep me honest in that scenario? Presumably I'd vote 1-0-0; what's my motivation to do otherwise?
>
>Quinn:
> Because there's a small chance that your (first "honest" range) vote actually will decide between a lottery of some chance of A or C and a certainty of B. If you haven't voted honestly, then that could make the wrong decision. And such decisions are all your "honest" ballot is ever used for, so there is no motivation to strategize with it.

>Lundell:
That's always the case with strategic voting when we don't have
perfect knowledge of the other votes. There's a larger chance (in this
example) that a sincere vote will cause B to defeat A. The more I know
about the state of other voters, the more motivation I have to vote
insincerely.
This is true, of course, of any manipulable voting rule.

--wrong.  There is NOT a "larger chance" that a sincere (double range
voting) vote
will cause B to defeat A.  There is in this example ZERO chance of that,

Also double range voting is NOT a "manipulable voting rule" (or more
precisely, it cannot be advantageously manipulated by altering the
"please be honest" range-style sub-ballot,
and indeed any such manipulation whatsoever will be strictly disadvantageous)

As far as I can tell, Lundell has either never read, or has not
comprehended, what "double range voting" is.

That's a pity because it is a major theoretical advance with
considerable philosophical implications, which was sort of the whole
point of this whole thread.

-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org