[EM] Re: Cardinal Ratings vs. Approval Voting (vs. IRV)

[Bill Lewis Clark]

Kevin Venzke wrote:

> Where is the scenario where rating in the middle turns out to have
> been optimal after the fact?  Or have I misunderstood the claim?

I've modified the claim somewhat, in light of what I've gathered to be the
proper perspective from reading some of the responses to my earlier post.

I hadn't realized the degree to which strategic voting was presumed to be
the typical behavior among voters.  Personally, I think it's nowhere near
as widespread a phenomenon as it's apparently thought to be on this list
-- but I still feel I can make my point, even adjusting for this.

My claim is (now) that the optimal strategy for approval voting and
cardinal ratings (or "Range Voting" as Rob Lanphier has suggested it be
termed) will differ in any election where a significant portion of the
population votes sincerely (where "significant portion" is something I
have yet to suitably define.)

I believe that any optimal voting strategy will need to take into
consideration the behavior of sincere voters -- and this behavior will
differ in important ways, depending on whether approval voting or range
voting is used.  Thus, the optimal strategy for each method -- as it is
implemented in actual situations, as opposed to idealized theoretical
situations -- will differ.

I'm a bit drunk right at the moment (getting ready to watch the Eagles
keep with Philadelphia sporting tradition and choke just as they've gotten
all their fans' hopes up) so I'm not going to try to work out a suitable
example until tomorrow -- but I think I've captured the essence of my
point well enough.

Cheers,

-Bill Clark

-- 
Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004
http://www.kucinich.us/