If you think B "should" win, the point is made that Range voting won't pass. Anybody who loses 90-10 in plurality but wins in another system is just an argument against the other system.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On Behalf Of Abd ulRahman Lomax > Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [EM] Rob: Condorcet's Criterion vs FBC. Will > people favorite-bury? > > At 04:30 AM 10/3/2005, Rob Lanphier wrote: > >90 voters: A=7, B=6 > >10 voters: A=0, B=10 > > It has been proposed that Range votes be normalized, otherwise voters > who honestly recognize that no candidate is perfect and thus does not > rank at least one as a 10 will suffer vote dilution. It is possible > that ballot instructions could warn the voter that their vote will be > diluted if they don't rank at least one at the top rank. Or, with > full normalization [top and bottom], the above would become > > 90 voters: A=10, B=0 > 10 voters: A=0, B=10. > > Obviously, A wins by a landslide. > > >A:630 > >B:640 > > > >B wins, even though 90% of voters prefer A to B. > > By a slight preference. Still if only top normalization is used, the > vote becomes > > 90: A=10, B=8.52 > 10: A=0, B=10 > > still a strong victory for A. > > But what if there were the same votes present in the system for A and > B, but there were other candidates, and it was clear from the A votes > that the preference for A over B was indeed very weak, as the numbers > would indicate. (There might be other candidates ranked as 10s, for > example, but scattered so that none of those candidates will actually > win. And others as zeros.) > > I could easily argue that B *should* win that Range election. > > But normalization makes sense, for what it does is to compensate for > the fact that people express different intensities of feeling with > what might be the same levels of difference between candidates. I see > no reason to reward extreme ranking; therefore normalization. 90% of > the people prefer A and 10% rate him as zero? It is patently obvious > that those 10% are exaggerating, or they are using a corrupt standard. > > >There is no possible way Range will ever get serious > support, given that > >weakness. > > Normalization completely answers this particular objection. > Normalization, by the way, would probably be to 1, no matter what the > numbers on the ballot. The reason: each voter gets 1 vote. Range is > an Approval method. A vote of up to 1 may be cast for each candidate. > Range is essentially Approval with fractional voting possible. > > > If it manages to pass constitutional muster, it goes against > >what I suspect is the instinct of most voters out there, including > >myself. I cannot be brought to recommend a system that suffers from > >such a glaring defect. > > First of all, I think the defect has been misunderstood. Even if > Range is not normalized, most voters will know that voting less than > 100% is a weak vote. And then there is an easy fix. Whether or not > votes in Range should be normalized is controversial within the Range > community; the side other than the one I've argued says that people > should be free to express such weak preferences as result in the > election shown above. Personally, I think that Mr. Lanphier's > objection will be a common one, if Range is not normalized, and I > also think that many will stick with that objection. Whether it is > valid or not. > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
