On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:54:59 -0400 Warren Smith wrote in part:
Range voting is very robustly the best among about 30 systems tried including
a couple condorcet systems according to my giant
comparative Bayesian regret study in 2000. OK, maybe you can attack that.
Maybe you can say I did not put in your favorite system or favorite
voting strategy. (Some of the systems I am being attacked for, were not even
invented at the time I did the study.) Those attacks don't matter:
The bottom line is, you should now be convinced range is pretty damn good - even
if not the tippy top best among all possible systems ever proposed r
that ever will be proposed, it clearly is in the top few percent - as far
as quality is concerned, and it
does not seem to exhibit any major exploitable weaknesses since
it scored top in EVERY one of 144 different parameter settings.
Who says this, other than you as inventor bragging about how good you claim
your child can run?
What is the definition of range voting?
In the paragraphs I dropped I read that you did Condorcet margins for
method comparison, while others agree that wv is a stronger contender.
You also excluded equal ranking - another component of "normal" Condorcet
that makes it more attractive to many.
Also range (with single digit scores)
can be adopted right now on every voting machine in the USA without
any modification necessary. The worst you can say is on some machine types
it would be inconvenient. (And this adoptibility is false for IRV & Condorcet.)
This is even more of a stretch than many of the sales pitch paragraphs. How
can this be made to happen?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
