On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Rob Lanphier wrote:
Warren,
The problem with placing paramount importance on "utility" in voting
methods is not that it doesn't exist, it's that there's no systematic,
fair way of measuring utility. In the highly charged atmosphere of
high-stakes decision making, it's hard to tell the real Hitler from
someone who is "just like Hitler" as far as someone else is concerned.
Comparisons to Hitler are so common, it's cliche.
Range voting methods tend to give strategic advantage to those that are
prone to hyperbole, i.e. those people that declare "candidates A, B, and
C are PERFECT, while candidates D and E MIGHT AS WELL BE HITLER". Your
strategic incentive will be to give the absolute highest rank to those
that you approve, and the absolute lowest rank to those that you don't.
Not everyone will do that; just the people who deeply understand the
system and those that are prone to hyperbole.
I'd just as soon not favor a system that favors those prone to
hyperbole. That would do real damage to humanity.
Rob
I think this post deserves some kind of award for "Best use of 'Hitler' in
a serious argument".
Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
