----- Original Message ----- From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm > [email protected] wrote: ... > There may also be another scenario where Majority Judgement (or > median > ratings, for that matter) would do better than ranked methods. > If it's > possible for the voters to agree on what, say, "Good" means > (comparability of utilities), then MJ might extract usable > cardinal > information from the voters, while the strategy resistance makes > the > cardinal information much less prone to the sort of Approval- > reduction > that you would see in Range. If one holds certain assumptions > that make > cardinal methods useful at all, then MJ could well be strategy > resistant > enough that it would do better than Range*. > > B&L spends quite a bit of their paper on the claim that the > voters *do* > agree on what the different categories mean, and so that there > is > comparability so that the cardinal information can be used.
Instead of asking voters for "utility" values, ask them to rate the candidates on a scale of zero to 100%, where rating candidate X at 37% means that you think that 37% of the time candidate X would vote the same way that you would vote if you were there representing yourself. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
