>WDS: In IEVS, presently, equal rankings are forbidden in rank-order methods. >MO: which (like Warren's other assumptions) makes the results meaningless.
--WDS: While I agree it would be nice if IEVS did equal rankings, and I plan to make a future version do that, (a) I do not agree I ever made any "assumption" here. I simply described the status of IEVS. I did not "make an assumption." (b) I do not agree every result in the universe that concerns rank order voting methods is "meaningless." >MO: If Warren wants to make RV look good, then he'd be well-advised to not compare it to Condorcet. Continuing to do so will only make RV look really shabby. --WDS: I resent any implication that my goal with IEVS is to "make RV look good." My goal is to investigate data and compare voting methods, as opposed to figuring I have all the answers at the outset. >Abd: One thing that Warren's work seems to have done is to answer the common objection to Range that sincere voters will be harmed by strategic voters. > MO: No he hasn't... It's obvious that [Smith is wrong]. --WDS: I believe Abd was referring to the following: http://rangevoting.org/StratHonMix.html --WDS: finally, I said I would explain why, in certain parts of the parameter space, IEVS now finds that RV does worse than Condorcet methods. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of that now and you can read it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RangeVoting/message/3501 I plan some further experiments which should shed some light on how common this is... Warren D Smith http://rangevoting.org ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
