I can't believe I missed such a massive flaw...Coming up with an approval-range method not vulnerable to vote management is difficult.
For electing a candidate, we consume an amount of voting power
from the people who had such a candidate marked by V/ N + 1 (the
Bischoff quota) (where V is your
At 12:21 AM 6/17/2006, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
Free-range voting?
I'm making an exception to my general avoidance of posting here. Yes,
Free Range Voting is a nice name. The Free in it refers to a voter
being allowed a broad range of rating levels rather than the black
and white of plurality
Anthony O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED] write:
And about the proportional range system I talked about earlier, the
workings
of the system is obvious. Under PAV rules, you assume that candidates
give 1
point to an outcome for having one approved of candidate, 1/3 for the
second
approved of
Anthony O'Neal thasupasacfitinman at gmail.com wrote:
Tactical voting works against that. If people tactical vote, then
they
get
no method to express their actual desired.
I don't think you understand the method. It was a very short
description,
but PAV is not vulnerable to
Free-range voting?
--
/Jonathan Lundell.
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Yum! Tastes like chicken.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
Free-range voting?
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Range voting's name has always sounded slightly of metallic and bland to me. So I propose that we call it the free vote instead, simply because it is probably the least restrictive voting system yet proposed. It doesn't force any rules on people except that they must give points within a specific
