On Jan 17, 2009, at 10:38 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
--- On Sun, 18/1/09, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote:
On Jan 17, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
The mail contained quite good
definitions.
I didn't however agree with the
referenced part below. I think "sincere"
and "zero-knowledge best strategic"
ballot need not be the same. For example
in Range(0,99) my sincere ballot could
be A=50 B=51 but my best strategic vote
would be A=0 B=99. Also other methods
may have similarly small differences
between "sincere" and "zero-knowledge
best strategic" ballots.
My argument is that the Range values (as well as the
Approval cutoff point) have meaning only within the method.
We know from your example how you rank A vs B, but the
actual values are uninterpreted except within the count.
The term "sincere" is metaphorical at best, even
with linear ballots. What I'm arguing is that that
metaphor breaks down with non-linear methods, and the
appropriate generalization/abstraction of a sincere ballot
is a zero-knowledge ballot.
I don't quite see why ranking based
methods (Range, Approval) would not
follow the same principles/definitions
as rating based methods. The sincere
message of the voter was above that she
only slightly prefers B over A but the
strategic vote indicated that she finds
B to be maximally better than A (or
that in order to make B win she better
vote this way).
(I'd use rating/ranking opposite to that. No?)
I was making a smaller point, that the actual values in Range and the
approval cutoff point in Approval are hard to interpret as "sincere"
or not. On the other hand, we need a voter's "sincere" linear ordering
of the candidates (ranking?) in order to be able to say whether an
*outcome* is better or worse.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
