If some want to throw out the Majority Criterion in favor of something better, then both the "something" and the "better" deserve some scrutiny. For example, here are some questions:
1. If the Majority Criterion gets repudiated because it is inconsistent with Range Voting, why is it that we know that Range Voting is better? Is there a replacement criterion, or is Range Voting just being declared self-evident perfection? 2. What exactly is it that Range Voting maximizes, even assuming sincere voting? Is it social utility or social satisfaction? What are those? How are they measured? 3. Exactly what is a sincere Range vote? How do I as a voter know what my sincere Range vote is? 4. If Range Voting were maximizing anything that had a separate, independent existence, wouldn't Range Voting satisfy an Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives criterion? If Range Voting doesn't satisfy Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives, even with sincere voting, does that mean that Range Voting is not really maximizing anything? -- David Cary --- Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, again, we are talking about election methods, per se. And > methods which ignore strength of preference cannot maximize social > utility. The data simply is not there. And if strength of > preference is considered, there goes the Majority Criterion.... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
