no my "prefeence" for utility does NOT trace to my "belief that many voters will be sincere." (Venzke delusion about me.) It also does NOT arise from the idea that voters who want to downweight their votes, can do so, thus leading to better utility election results (although that undoubtably is generally true).
Because: in my computer simulations & comparisons of different voting systems, voters were allowed to be strategic & insincere, and range votign had the best utility under those circumstances even with 100% strategic voters. And because: in my computer sims, nobody downweighted themselves - all voters voted 100 for their favorite and 0 for their most hated. Always. So venzke & gilmour are completely wrong about my views and motivations. In fact, though, were Gilmour to add in intentional downweighting to the simulation, then utlity would get even better, giving range voting even more of an advantage over other voting systems in whic such downweighting is not possible. wds ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
