tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post3800361257514361731..comments2024-03-18T17:01:07.165-07:00Comments on The Provocateur: Deconstructing Range Votingmike volpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-19158111513953488732009-09-04T11:34:05.976-07:002009-09-04T11:34:05.976-07:00I'd been busy, so didn't get to read this ...I'd been busy, so didn't get to read this when it was fresh two weeks ago. But it's Sheldon, with a 'd'; if you don't mind correcting it. Thanks!Dale Sheldon-Hesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07974707193305445403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-69045237057775255922009-08-23T16:26:17.846-07:002009-08-23T16:26:17.846-07:00Greg commonly repeats these false and misleading c...Greg commonly repeats these false and misleading criticisms.<br /><br />Score voting (aka range voting) is actually found to perform better than all commonly proposed alternatives with any number of strategic or honest voters. See http://scorevoting.net/StratHonMix.html<br /><br />Greg brings up the "later no harm" criterion, which is another misleading red herring. The problem is that IRV proporents naively assume that the "later" means, "later, after you've started by sincerely top-ranking your favorite candidate". But that doesn't happen because IRV <em>fails</em> the Favorite Betrayal Criterion. This prompted me to update this page I wrote about it. http://groups.google.com/group/scorevoting/web/degrade-plurality<br /><br />It's a little long, but it goes into depth about why the later-no-harm criterion is so deceptive, and why IRV proponents use it anyway. It includes discussion of the infamous 2000 election.<br /><br />Also I disagree that IRV is a good stepping stone to proportional representation, although that naive belief is what propels FairVote and allies to support IRV regardless of its merits -- they only care about getting PR, so IRV's flaws don't matter to them. That's discussed <a href="http://scorevoting.net/PropRep.html" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br />Greg's argument about backsliding at Dartmouth and the IEEE are also disingenuous, and discussed here:<br />http://www.scorevoting.net/DartmouthBack.html<br />http://scorevoting.net/FeerstTheory.html<br /><br />The final argument that score voting is not ready because it has not been sufficiently tested is simply bogus. Score voting achieves extremely low Bayesian regret even if you make unrealistically cynical assumptions about its behavior. That is, even when you assume for the sake of argument that everything will "go wrong" with score voting, it <em>still</em> does better than e.g. IRV. Score voting behaves as well with 100% strategic voters as IRV does with 100% honest voters.<br /><br />Greg is an anti-scientific partisan when it comes to this issue. That is revealed by reading some of these links. When you see how blatantly inaccurate many of his claims are, it becomes clear that he lacks expertise and objectivity in this subject matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-39458880524816027432009-08-23T11:26:25.864-07:002009-08-23T11:26:25.864-07:00I believe that in our thriving democracy we should...I believe that in our thriving democracy we should see as many different forms of voting as possible. I would like to see RCV and Range voting tried in localities all over. That's the purpose of federalism. It's to have states and localities be incubators for ideas. I would support the advancement of both RCV and range voting.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-82304192364310678592009-08-23T10:17:07.720-07:002009-08-23T10:17:07.720-07:00Fair point. I think it's a problem, but would ...Fair point. I think it's a problem, but would be good to see it tried out in more elections. <br /><br />One thing going for it is that RCV is quite tested in many settings, and some big fights for it (and to keep it) this year coming up. if you can tell a system by the enemies it has, the people fighting RCV help make the case that it's a good system!Toddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-83513967270957450432009-08-23T09:18:38.624-07:002009-08-23T09:18:38.624-07:00I agree but that's not necessarily a bad thing...I agree but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's very possible that this sort of election mechanism would favor the fringes which would be bad, but things would need to play out first. I haven't endorsed or dismissed the system. I've simply presented it. we should all know and debate all voting forms. We have a free democracy and should embrace this sort of innovative voting style.mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-31951863163535189062009-08-23T07:49:50.992-07:002009-08-23T07:49:50.992-07:00The candidates are competing, so every vote is not...The candidates are competing, so every vote is not separate. Every voter has to weigh the impact of how they vote vote for one candidate on the chances of how they vote for another candidate.<br /><br />So going into an election, any candidate worth her salt will tell her supporters -- "please max out for me and don't give any points to anyone else." The side that gets this message out better will probably win.Toddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-67790348301029061202009-08-23T05:26:35.632-07:002009-08-23T05:26:35.632-07:00Why would strategic voting be bad? Second, how is ...Why would strategic voting be bad? Second, how is someone dishonesty voting ever? They vote how they vote. How is that dishonest. Also, what is the Burr dilemma? <br /><br />Why would anyone score Gore lower? In range voting every vote is separate. No one is forced to score anyone lower because of someone else. Why would someone score Gore lower?mike volpehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02999118519606254362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3098264341625381422.post-10294934337004432552009-08-23T03:15:02.800-07:002009-08-23T03:15:02.800-07:00No public elections have Range Voting for good rea...No public elections have Range Voting for good reason, largely due to its extreme susceptibility to strategic voting. 1) Range systems fail the Later No Harm criterion, which means voting for a second choice under Range hurts the chances of electing your first choice. This creates a huge incentive to dishonestly bullet vote. 2) Range gives voters have an incentive to dishonestly exaggerate their preferences. 3) Range suffers from the Burr dilemma.<br /><br />Also, your Gore/Bush/Nader example shows how the spoiler problem doesn't go away with Range Voting. Nader's entrance into the race would probably cause some of his supporters to score Gore lower, thereby potentially throwing the election to Bush. That would not be an issue with RCV/IRV.<br /><br />These reasons help explain why Approval Voting, a form of Range Voting, was abandoned by the IEEE and the Dartmouth Alumni Association.<br /><br />Shelton is wrong that a "spoiler" scenario, at least as the term spoiler is traditionally understood, can happen under RCV. I suspect he's referring to the far rarer and more obscure problem called the "center squeeze" --- a problem that opponents of RCV will often try to conflate, with the spoiler scenario.<br /><br />So, yeah, no voting system is perfect, including RCV (aka IRV). But RCV is significantly better than the status quo, provides a stepping-stone to proportional representation with STV, and the occurrence of the purported problems with it have been very few and far between.<br /><br />As for Range, we have very little idea of how it will work in a contemporary competitive public election. There's actually very little data on how well it works in private elections, because so few use it. Personally, I am opposed to using any voting system for public elections, regardless of its theoretically benefits, without it first being tested and proven in increasingly realistic scenarios.Greghttp://www.somervilleirv.orgnoreply@blogger.com