Reply inline: On Tue, January 18, 2011 05:33, Clay Shentrup wrote:
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:14, Thomas Dukleth <kohalist@agogme.com> wrote:
[...]
The deficiency in the
FairVote criticism of range voting to which I linked was that the scenario they give uses a range which is unduly high relative to the number of voters.
Their scenario has 100 voters casting ballots with a range of 0 to 99.
I don't know what the number of voters has to do with the range of scores. In any case, I think a 0-9 scale should be plenty.
The larger the range of permitted scores relative to the number of voters the greater the possibility, however unrealistic, that a few strategic voters using the highest permitted scores might outvote a much larger number of voters mistakenly using the weakest scores. The scenario described by FairVote would not have worked with 100 voters and a permitted range of only 0 to 9. They needed the large range to make their absurdly contrived scenario work.
The relatively large range allows merely two voters using a reasonable voting strategy of casting their greatest preference strongly at the maximum range of 99 to outvote all other voters expressing their greatest preference weakly near the minimum of the range at 1.
Well, yes. That analogy is pretty absurd in its sheer implausibility. However, the range they use is precisely what is advocated by some people. (I advocate 0-9, as I said.) http://scorevoting.net/Why99.html
A reasonably low range relative to the number of voters along with voters
who use some half intelligent sense of voting strategy avoids the unreasonable case above.
[...] Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783