On Tue, 2005-10-04 at 16:26 -0400, Warren Smith wrote: > I also point out that Robla on a previous occasion agreed that RV was a good > system > and, if I recall correctly said he would be "dancing in the streets" were it > enacted. However, yesterday he said he could "never support it" > in view of its "glaring defects." This behavior seems compatible > with the theory that he is "on drugs"... but probably it is simply a mater > of robla's priorities getting a little skewed by a little too much exposure to > the EM nerdworld, and after some reconsideration perhaps he will regain his > senses.
I'll retract the "dancing in the streets" part. Since I personally know roughly how to deal with RV's strategy problems, I would find it acceptable and preferable to plurality if there weren't political considerations. The more I think about the potential problems, the less I like the system, but learning how to vote in the system is an intellectually interesting problem I could cope with if this were only a personal issue. However, there are political considerations, and it's not just a personal issue. Range has the potential to greatly set back the cause of electoral reform, due to the possibility that good systems will get painted with the same brush as Range. Moreover, in case you plan to use my lukewarm personal preference of Range over Plurality against me later, I'll state for the record that I reserve the right to find Range voting even more repulsive than I do today. I've seen a lot of different definitions of the "majority criterion", but for purposes of this email, I'll describe a minimal version: "If a strict majority of the voters rank a particular alternative as their unique first choice, then the voting method must select that alternative as a unique winner" (Anderson, 1994) This seems like a very minimal litmus test for mainstream acceptability of a voting system. Plurality, IRV, and all Condorcet variants meet it. Approval arguably meets it, in that the only way to "rank" a single candidate as a unique first choice is to bullet vote. Range does not. Incidentally, Range voting wouldn't have prevented slavery. Black suffrage was a pretty important prerequisite which didn't exist back then. Also, I don't think that a bunch of people who were willing to secede from the union and fight a war on their own soil would express a mild preference for slavery in a Range vote. I honestly can't believe I'm rewarding your ad hominem attack with a response. I'll endeavor not to make the same mistake twice. Rob Footnote: Anderson, 1994: Research draft by L. Bruce Anderson titled "How To Take Votes: New Ideas on Better Ways to Determine the Winners", March, 1994. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
