We care, because we care about science, and basing decisions of evidence and not dogma. We figured that would fit right in line with the goals of a bunch of sci-fi buffs.
How you can possibly think that Range Voting is "harder to understand" than IRV is completely beyond me. THOUSANDS of web sites use ratings systems, like 1-5 stars, and present the average. But how many systems use IRV? Range Voting is more than just leaps and bounds better, it's simpler.
And what does corruption in the Olympics have to do with Range Voting? Guilt by association? Considering that Range Voting produces greater social utility efficiency even when EVERY SINGLE VOTER is 100% DISHONESTLY STRATEGIC than IRV produces if EVERY SINGL EVOTER is 100% HONEST, we'd make the obvious case that Range Voting PREVENTS the bad effects of corruption.
And I'd encourage you to research this a little better, before you discount a process which would give you vastly better results.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Range Voting
Date: 2007-01-23 04:02 am (UTC)How you can possibly think that Range Voting is "harder to understand" than IRV is completely beyond me. THOUSANDS of web sites use ratings systems, like 1-5 stars, and present the average. But how many systems use IRV? Range Voting is more than just leaps and bounds better, it's simpler.
And what does corruption in the Olympics have to do with Range Voting? Guilt by association? Considering that Range Voting produces greater social utility efficiency even when EVERY SINGLE VOTER is 100% DISHONESTLY STRATEGIC than IRV produces if EVERY SINGL EVOTER is 100% HONEST, we'd make the obvious case that Range Voting PREVENTS the bad effects of corruption.
And I'd encourage you to research this a little better, before you discount a process which would give you vastly better results.