>Forest Simmons: >Suppose that the "candidates" (i.e.alternatives) are possible locations for a >building, >and that the >inconvenience of each alternative for each voter is proportional to the >distance from >that voter's residence >to the location, or simply the time it takes to get there. The taxicab >distance would be >a natural metric >in this situation, but I don't see utility = 1/(1 + distance^2).
--I did not say 1/(1+dist^2) I said utility=1/squareroot(1+distance^2). >Forest: >If I were a voter in this situation, my sincere rating for an alternative at >distance x >would be > r=(D-x)/(D-d), >where D and d, respectively, are the distances to the respective alternatives >furthest >and nearest to me. --We are not speaking about sincere normalized ratings. We are speaking of utilities, which definitely are NOT to be normalized in this sort of fashion! Doing so would (a) be nuts for the purpose of getting reasonable bayesian regret values and also (b) would artificially cause normalized range voting to be a "perfect" voting method. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
