Ah. So your argument of voter preference for this system is entirely specious. Thank you, that tells me all I need to know.
Being disproven by Wikipedia has really upset you apparently, so much so that you are now responding to me with completely random nonsense comments. Oh, kayyy.
It's not bugs in your software, it's the assumptions made when writing the software and creating the data.
Our assumptions range from one extreme to another, and everywhere in between. Range Voting beat the other systems by a huge margin, no matter WHICH assumptions we used. You guys seem to be having a really hard time following that part. If we assume voters are stupid, Range Voting wins. If we assume they are educated, Range Voting wins. If we assume they are strategic, Range Voting wins. If we assume they are honest, Range Voting wins.
If the software has some kind of flaws that you'd care to point out, we'd welcome your specific analysis and suggestions for improvement.
Social utility/cost benefit/"economic man" arguments are always liable to drift away from reality
The simulations used hundreds of millions of different randomized distributions of voters and candidates, and yet Range Voting consistently won out, by a large margin. No matter what placement you think is realistic, with that many simulations, some of them should have come close to modeling real world distributions, yet Range Voting consistently won, and by a lot. If this effect was purely coincidence, we should have expected to see many scenarios where Range Voting just randomly happened to do worse than other systems. Yet that didn't happen. Clearly then, it's not just a random coincidence. The odds of that are infinitesimally low. We can be extremely confident that this really is an effect of the properties of Range Voting, and not just some random fluke. If it was just a random fluke, we wouldn't expect it to hold true over hundreds of millions of trials.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Erroneously?
Date: 2007-01-24 11:58 am (UTC)Being disproven by Wikipedia has really upset you apparently, so much so that you are now responding to me with completely random nonsense comments. Oh, kayyy.
It's not bugs in your software, it's the assumptions made when writing the software and creating the data.
Our assumptions range from one extreme to another, and everywhere in between. Range Voting beat the other systems by a huge margin, no matter WHICH assumptions we used. You guys seem to be having a really hard time following that part. If we assume voters are stupid, Range Voting wins. If we assume they are educated, Range Voting wins. If we assume they are strategic, Range Voting wins. If we assume they are honest, Range Voting wins.
If the software has some kind of flaws that you'd care to point out, we'd welcome your specific analysis and suggestions for improvement.
Social utility/cost benefit/"economic man" arguments are always liable to drift away from reality
The simulations used hundreds of millions of different randomized distributions of voters and candidates, and yet Range Voting consistently won out, by a large margin. No matter what placement you think is realistic, with that many simulations, some of them should have come close to modeling real world distributions, yet Range Voting consistently won, and by a lot. If this effect was purely coincidence, we should have expected to see many scenarios where Range Voting just randomly happened to do worse than other systems. Yet that didn't happen. Clearly then, it's not just a random coincidence. The odds of that are infinitesimally low. We can be extremely confident that this really is an effect of the properties of Range Voting, and not just some random fluke. If it was just a random fluke, we wouldn't expect it to hold true over hundreds of millions of trials.