Re: [RangeVoting] Re: Reality check: IRV vs Range and actually building a 3rd party
- Joe seems to be interested in achieving
two targets (and these targets only)
- ability to vote sincerely
- ability to vote for a third party
The only methods under consideration
seem to be Range and IRV.
You want to get good selling arguments
You don't want to hear about the
weaknesses of IRV (while weaknesses of
Range can be discussed).
It is not easy to find good marketing
arguments for Range in this situation.
In sincere votes IRV is maybe better.
There are cases where sincere voting is
bad in IRV too but those cases are more
rare (and often complex enough so that
regular voters may not vote
strategically even when that would be
beneficial to them).
In the ability to vote for third parties
both methods are quite ok when the third
party has no chances. IRV has some more
risks involved and that could be used to
attack it. When the third party grows to
a major party Range will have more
The next step of the Range promoters
would probably be to attack the anomalies
of IRV. But you banned that track (and it
would anyway be partly based on trying to
exaggerate the problems of IRV).
--- On Thu, 1/1/09, steveel2 <stevegeneral999@...> wrote:
> --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho Laatu
> <juho4880@...> wrote:
> > One quick response would be to say
> > "in Range you can vote for the third
> > party".
> Joe counters, "Oh yeah? I can do that in IRV"
> Result so far: Joe has not budged an inch AND you have
> spent your first (and therefore best) bullet to convince
> to support RV.
> > And maybe add "I'm sorry but
> > you better vote strategically and
> > give full points also to some of the
> > leading candidates".
> Joe counters: "Hey wait a minute.... I'm here at
> this townhall
> meeting because the current system compels me to be
> dishonest, and I
> think that stinks. Now you guys are saying you have the
> magic cure
> and it ALSO compels me to be dishonest? Get lost!"
> Result so far: You have destroyed any vestige of
> credibility with Joe.
> Any other thoughts?
> Steve E
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, Juho Laatu <juho4880@...> wrote:
>For myself, I go one step further. It is one thing for the system to
> --- On Sat, 3/1/09, Bruce R. Gilson <brgster@...> wrote:
> > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "steveel2"
> > <stevegeneral999@>
> > wrote:
> > > Bruce, I'm curious how you (and anyone else) feel
> > about strategic
> > > voting, per se. Is it a curse? A boon?
> I believe most voters definitely want to have
> a method that allows them to vote sincerely.
> That is already difficult enough.
ALLOW sincere votes, and it is another for the system to not coerce
people into forgoing that option. In other words, among other things
my ideal system would minimize the liklihood that ANYONE would vote
PS Call me naive....