Yes, this was a poor choice of words. There could be elections where IRV chose a better winner than Range Voting would have. They are just extremely rare. So I should have said "most of the time".
But no, this analogy is not "inane and bad". You are using a system which is poor at giving voters what they want, just like using a bad communication system is bad at giving a consumer what he wants.
We have a computer program that, once you get all the raw data in it, counts the entire Hugo ballot and spews out the whole result...This is not in the slightest way more difficult than counting up range voting points.
I never said it was. My point is that if people want to call Range Voting "complicated", they should know that IRV is drastically more complicated.
Since you elsewhere define things like 1-5 star movie ratings as a form of range voting (which I think is wrong, because in those you're not trying to advocate a winner)
Yes you are - that's exactly what you're doing. The only point you could be making is that people will be more honest in those systems, instead of strategically doing things like exaggerating to a minimum or maximum. We calculated the utility efficiency that would be produced by a 100% strategic electorate, and they still kick the pants off the other common methods. Range Voting with 100% strategic voters perferms about as well (often better) than IRV using 100% honest voters.
I personally find casting range votes much harder than casting IRV with a limited number of candidates. Much harder.
Much harder? Could you be exaggerating just a touch? The local yokels I polled in Texas showed zero signs of having any problem going down a list and rating people. If you want to make it simple for yourself, just give the options you like a 10, and the others a 0. Your preferences will be better represented by this method than by IRV, statistically speaking...by a LOT.
If difficulty/work required to vote is more important to you than picking the right winner, why not completely get rid of the elections, and just use a random name out of a hat? That would save you far more time than the difference between using Range Voting and using IRV.
Now, you can talk about voters prefer[r]ing range voting, though I want to see your proof that they do.
I claim that they prefer it when the utility of the election result is combined with the utility of the voting process. For instance, say you told people they could cast up to 10 ballots, in our current political elections. As annoying and time-consuming as that would be, you'd better bet your life that a lot of people would do it - and that would show that, clearly, they care more about being satisfied with the election outcome than they do about how hard it is to completely cast 10 ballots.
Re: Missing the point
Yes, this was a poor choice of words. There could be elections where IRV chose a better winner than Range Voting would have. They are just extremely rare. So I should have said "most of the time".
But no, this analogy is not "inane and bad". You are using a system which is poor at giving voters what they want, just like using a bad communication system is bad at giving a consumer what he wants.
We have a computer program that, once you get all the raw data in it, counts the entire Hugo ballot and spews out the whole result...This is not in the slightest way more difficult than counting up range voting points.
I never said it was. My point is that if people want to call Range Voting "complicated", they should know that IRV is drastically more complicated.
Since you elsewhere define things like 1-5 star movie ratings as a form of range voting (which I think is wrong, because in those you're not trying to advocate a winner)
Yes you are - that's exactly what you're doing. The only point you could be making is that people will be more honest in those systems, instead of strategically doing things like exaggerating to a minimum or maximum. We calculated the utility efficiency that would be produced by a 100% strategic electorate, and they still kick the pants off the other common methods. Range Voting with 100% strategic voters perferms about as well (often better) than IRV using 100% honest voters.
I personally find casting range votes much harder than casting IRV with a limited number of candidates. Much harder.
Much harder? Could you be exaggerating just a touch? The local yokels I polled in Texas showed zero signs of having any problem going down a list and rating people. If you want to make it simple for yourself, just give the options you like a 10, and the others a 0. Your preferences will be better represented by this method than by IRV, statistically speaking...by a LOT.
If difficulty/work required to vote is more important to you than picking the right winner, why not completely get rid of the elections, and just use a random name out of a hat? That would save you far more time than the difference between using Range Voting and using IRV.
Now, you can talk about voters prefer[r]ing range voting, though I want to see your proof that they do.
I claim that they prefer it when the utility of the election result is combined with the utility of the voting process. For instance, say you told people they could cast up to 10 ballots, in our current political elections. As annoying and time-consuming as that would be, you'd better bet your life that a lot of people would do it - and that would show that, clearly, they care more about being satisfied with the election outcome than they do about how hard it is to completely cast 10 ballots.