My impression was that he was talking about a given set of preference orders always mapping to the same winner. Saari seemed to find it objectionable that individuals preferring A to B to C might not all vote the same way -- i.e. that some would vote for A alone, while others would vote for both A and B -- and that the outcome depends on such factors as strategy and intensity.
As though it doesn't anyway, regardless of what system you use. I don't know who would consider it important to find out preference orders given the actual ballots, but to a certain extent this is possible with approval voting. For example, if an individual votes for a frontrunner as well as a minor candidate, he probably preferred the minor candidate first, and included the frontrunner as a backup choice. If he had preferred the frontrunner, there would have been no incentive to vote for a second candidate. Bart Steve Barney wrote: > > Bart: > > What is the definition of a "deterministic" voting system, as Saari apparently > uses the term? > > I thought that it had something to do with being able to determine what the > ballots said, from the final tally. I guess that the Borda Count is more > "determinant" than the Plurality Vote that way, as you can't tell what the 2nd, > 3rd, etc., preferences were at all. Perhaps the Approval Vote is similar to the > Plurality Vote to the extent that voters choose to bullet vote, or because you > cannot tell which approved candidates were more preferred than others. With the > BC you can always tell (correct me if I'm wrong) how many first place votes, > second place votes, etc., a candidate got, if you have the final tally and the > number of ballots (assuming no truncated ballots). > > Steve Barney > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bart Ingles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [...] > > Of course, how many voters would be willing to strategize in such a way > > depends on the sophisication of the voters, and on the actual > > intensities involved, so the actual outcome would be difficult to > > predict. So much for Borda being a deterministic voting system (one of > > Saari's justifications for preferring Borda over approval voting). > > > > In this case, behavior under approval voting should be much more > > predictable, since most or all of the voters could be expected to bullet > > vote. > > > > Bart > > ===== > "Democracy"?: > http://www1.umn.edu/irp/images/postcardAd2.jpg > AR-NewsWI, a news service for Wisconsin animal advocates: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AR-NewsWI/ > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! > http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
