Problems with Range and suggested solutions
Abd ulRahman Lomax <abd <at> lomaxdesign.com>
2005-09-01 02:04:39 GMT
It came back to me yesterday what I -- and some others -- have seen
as the biggest problem with Range voting, and also a solution that I
think I also expressed somewhere. But I tend to write way too much
and sometimes I think good ideas have been buried in fluff.
Range rewards those who exaggerate, it may weaken the vote of those
who do not use the full range of ratings.
Consider two candidates within an election, A and B, and two voters.
Voter 1 rates A and B as 99 and 20. One might analyze this vote as
indicating that the voter clearly approves of A and considers B as
possibly better than Genghis Khan.
Voter 2 rates A and B as 0 and 99.
In Range, voter 2's ratings outweigh those of voter 1.
This is essentially a kind of violation of one-person, one-vote.
It is fixable by using granularity-2 range, i.e. Approval, or
partially by normalizing the votes. I think basic normalization
should be done regardless in Range, that is, the maximum vote cast
should be normalized to 1 and the minimum vote cast to 0. However, in
an election with more than two candidates, this would not solve the
problem, because there might be a third candidate who was truly
awful, and Voter 1 might rate that candidate as zero, leaving the
same problem in the pairwise race between A and B.
So to go the distance, I'd suggest that Range ballots be analyzed