On Aug 24, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > 2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> > On Aug 24, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> >> On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote: >> >> >> Lundell: >> >> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot >> >> has a pragmatic/operational "meaning" as a function of its use in >> >> determining a winner. >> >> >> >> But but it's an unwarranted leap from that claim to use the ballot scores >> >> as a measure of utility. Arrows objection to cardinal scores, or one of >> >> them, is that they are not and cannot be commensurable across voters. >> > >> > --(1) using, not range voting, but DOUBLE RANGE VOTING, >> > described here: >> > http://rangevoting.org/PuzzRevealU2.html >> > the ballot scores ARE utilities for a strategic-honest voter. Any >> > voter who foolishly >> > uses non-utilities as her scores on her ballot, will get a worse >> > election result in expectation. This was not an "unwarranted leap," >> > this was a "new advance" >> > because the Simmons/Smith double-range-voting system is the first >> > voting system which (a) is good and which (b) incentivizes honest >> > utility-revelation (and only honest) by voters. >> >> It still seems to me that you're arguing in a circle. A utility score needs >> to have meaning logically prior to a voting system in order for a voter to >> vote in the first place. What is utility, from the point of view of a voter? >> >> Let me put the question another way. Suppose I'd rank three candidates A > B >> > C. >> >> On what grounds do I decide that (say) A=1.0 B=0.5 C=0.0 is honest, but >> A=1.0 B=0.7 C=0.0 is dishonest? >> >> In double-range, you'd say that if you felt that B was clearly better than a >> 50/50 chance of A or C, but as good as a 70/30 chance. > > And if the polls suggest that A & B are strong favorites and C is doing > poorly, how should I vote to maximize my utility? > > The point of double-range is that it introduces a small random factor to keep > you honest. Thus, I don't think most societies would accept it as a serious > system, but it does demonstrate that cardinal ballots can have a "meaning" > beyond rankings.
How does it keep me honest in that scenario? Presumably I'd vote 1-0-0; what's my motivation to do otherwise?
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
