On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Bart Ingles wrote: > > Rob LeGrand wrote: > > > > Good idea; it would make a fun project. But note that most Condorcet > > methods perform significantly better in my sincere-ballot simulations > > than Approval, which should be seen as a *very* rough approximation of > > CR. I think we should be very careful drawing conclusions from > > individual contrived examples. > > How did your simulations differ from Merrill's? Were you using position > in policy space to determine voter utilities, etc? >
I am not overly impressed by using "Average Social Utility" as a standard of performance. High average social utility is beneficial only in a society where that utility is apt to be spread around in the society. In my way of thinking "Average Sincere Social Approval" is a better standard of measurement for our world's societies. "Median Social Utility" would be a better standard than expected or average social utility. Countries with a few hundred billionaires and hundreds of thousands of peasants may have a high average of social utility, but will have a low median, and a low number of above poverty level households. Forest
