On Sat, 30 Sep 2006, Warren Smith wrote: >> B.Olson: >> The down side is that since this directly accomplishes summation of the >> ratings, per-ballot-rating methods such as IRNR and raking-derivation to >> Borda or Condorcet/VRR are not possible [with 3ballot]. > > --well, whether this is a "down side" depends on your point of view. > I personally regard the fact 3-ballot works best with Approval & Range > as yet another argument in favor of those systems and against, e.g. > Plurality, Borda, Condorcet, & IRV (in ascending order of strength > of this argument against them).
The down side is the strategy arguments about casting an honest ballot vs casting a ballot more likely to get you some of what you want. Straight ratings does not promote honest voting, but instead promotes saturating your ballot to the min and max of whatever scale you're using. There's loss of information there, and it doesn't then find the best winner and maximize social utility. > --PS. Hey B.Olson, I saw your cool BetterPolls.com site. > I think it would be nicer if the user (poll creator) got to choose > the range. You force -10 to +10, but some poll user might > prefer 0 to 99 or 1 to 1000 or whatever. > CRV attempts t give reasons to prefer 0-99, > http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html Yeah, selectable range is I think top on the to-do list of new features coming. (Right after making no-vote different from the neutral-vote, which is implemented but not published yet.) Brian Olson http://bolson.org/ ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
