An analysis of the constitutional question is already available within the CRV web site http://math.temple.edu/~wds/crv/ConstVt.html Also, re Robla's ludicrous "range killing example" illustrating range's "glaring defect", let me say this. You are perfectly free in the range system to cast a vote indicating your intentional, freely chosen, expression that you support A over B by a very SMALL favortism. You are also perfectly free in the range system to indicate you support A over B by a maximum possible amount. You can choose to do this regardless what the rest of your vote says about the non-A non-B candidates, unlike in many systems such as Borda, where you do not have that option and (once your ranks for the non-A, non-B candiates are chosen) your votes for A and B are pre-determined by the Borda system and you cannot choose them.
OK? Now Robla then had the incredible gall to COMPLAIN, AFTER he intentionally chose to give a vote favoring A over B by a tiny amount, despite being in no conceivable way forced to, that A had not won. I would say this does not illustrate a glaring defect in range voting. This illustrates a glaring defect in Robla's thinking. All Robla had to do was move his finger 3 inches further and the same from one other voter like him, in his example, and A would have won. But no. They, having traveled miles to reach the polls and stood on line, did not feel it was worth moving their finger a few inches further. Because A vs B really did not matter to them as much as the effort involved in moving their finger. That is fine. I am happy to see that range permits them to express that opinion honestly. BUT, I just do not see that Robla, under those circumstances, has any right to COMPLAIN about the outcome of the election as a "glaring failure of democracy." wds ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
