Fork me on GitHub
Math for the people, by the people.

User login

reorg the article

Primary tabs

reorg the article

The article needs a reorg to make it less argumentative and more mathematical.
Here is my proposal.
1. Definition section (with proposed modified definition) will do for now.
2. Mathematical advantages section is renamed: Properties
The following are to be stated as theorems:
a) In a 3-candidate race it is never strategically wise to range vote
against your preferred order of candidates. (does not hold for n-candidate
races, where n>3? if so,state the most general result)
b) If voters score all clones of a candidate the same, then the outcome
of the election is unchanged relative to having no clones.
c) Range voting does not exhibit a no show paradox.
d) Range voting evades Arrow's impossibility theorem (not sure about this:
if RV is not a voting system according to Arrow then it seems the result is

(undefined terms in this entry will by hyperlinked to the appropriate
entries to be be written that define the terms.)

3) Bayesian regret material : is interesting but may violate
the no shilling forum policy; I am suggesting that it be moved from this
entry since it deals with Multiple voting systems and that a new entry
on Bayesian regret be created and that most of the material be moved to that entry.

4) New section on Range Voting in Nature be created for the ants and honeybee material.
Of the material that is there the only part I would include is this:
It turns out [9] that honeybees and certain kinds of ants use an election system essentially equivalent to range voting to make nest-relocation decisions.
(The rest is too speculative and strikes me as an attempt to convince me to use range voting because bees and ants do it.) It might be appropriate to
expand a bit on the methods actually used in order to support the inference that it is range voting.
5) Adjust references according to material that actually gets included.
6) Other material to be omitted as too far from math.

Parting words from the person who closed the correction: 
Status: Rejected
Reference to the user who closed the correction.: 
Reference to the article this correction is about: 
Status of the article (was it accepted?): 
Status of the article (is it closed?): 
What kind of correction is this: 

Subscribe to Comments for "reorg the article"