royone at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 4 09:01:25 PDT 2001
Forest Simmons wrote:
> Dyadic Approval requires the voter to understand a process of
> assigning smaller weights to weaker preferences.
Only if you expect the voter to approach the eleciton with Dyadic
Approval in mind. I don't think that's necessary. Sophisticated
voters, of course, would want to know the details of vote-counting,
so that they could maximize their votes' impact. Ordinary voters
could simply vote intuitively (CR style), and their votes would
reflect, to some degree, the strength of their expressed preferences.
The unsophisticated voter would be horrified to learn that a rating
of 51 beats a 49 by the same amount as a 99 beats a 1, so the
adjustment to DA that I would make would be to use the difference
between the candidates instead of the absolute rating: 51 vs 49 is a
1/32 win, just like 99 vs. 97 or 3 vs. 1. In general, a ratings
difference of 50 (half the total range) points or more is a 1, 25-49
is 1/2, 13-24 is 1/4, etc.
The unsophisticated voter might expect 90 vs 20 to be more
substantial than 80 vs. 30, but when rating candidates that far
apart, they're probably more concerned with how they compare to those
with closer ratings. In any case, the actual scored difference is
within a factor of 2 of what one would expect, and those that are
rated farther apart are always scored at least as far apart as those
who are rated closer together.
The sophisticated, strategic voter would approach the election as
Dyadic Approval, but after ensuring 50 points between approved and
disapproved, would have some compromises to make.
More information about the Election-Methods