How hard it is to vote in each system is an empirical, not a theoretical system. The evidence is pretty clear that it is easier for most people to rate candidates on an absolute scale - whether numeric or verbal - rather than ranking them relative to each other. That is true despite the fact that it is illogical, that in some sense it should be easier to give a ranked vote which contains less information. But the fact remains: people can usually vote faster, with less ballot spoilage, and with less self-reported difficulty, under Range as compared to Condorcet.
2011/5/8 Dave Ketchum <[email protected]> > One of his thoughts caught my eye. > > On May 8, 2011, at 1:32 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: > >> >> With Condorcet, one must rate many candidates and then one must >> resolve cycles. I prefer scorevoting. >> > > We do not usually say "rate" with Condorcet but, thinking: Two thoughts > fit together for Score. > We optimize the ratings but, before we can really do that, we need to order > the candidates from best to worst. > > In Condorcet we also need to order the candidates - so it makes sense to > separate this shared task before comparing the differences in the systems. > So now, comparing the systems: > > For either, order the candidates from best, that this voter hopes wins, to > the collection of worst that this voter equally dislikes and wants to help > none of. > > For Score distribute ratings equally, with equal ratings ok for equal > liking - trivial effort. Then optimize ratings - perhaps for each trio, > B/S/W, adjust S up to help S beat W, or down to help B beat S - THIS is > LABORIOUS. > > For Condorcet simply rank as sorted, with equal rankings ok, and leaving > worst unranked - trivial effort. DONE, for the voter is not concerned with > cycles, a task for the method when there are three or more nearly tied > candidates that form a cycle. > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
