On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:08 -0400, Warren Smith wrote: > >robla: 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. > > --WDS: EXACTLY!!!! GOOD!!!
Warren, we don't agree. I said there is NO systematic, fair way of measuring utility. I didn't say it's hard, I said it's impossible. Ergo, for purposes of studying electoral systems, it might as well not exist. Using Bayesian regret on numeric utilities is begging the question. By stating utility as a numeric range, you're using Range-style metric. It's not entirely surprising that Range Voting does well measured in its own terms. > However, Heitzig has repeatedly and clearly stated that it > "does not exist." > I have repeatedly stated that it does exist, it is just hard to measure > and hard to get people to tell it to you honestly. Could you cite an example you're referring to? I'd like to read this in context, and I'm not finding a good reference. A pointer to one of the archives is sufficient. Thanks Rob ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
