[EM] Plurality is not a "yes/no voting system"

[Adam Tarr]

Tom Ruen wrote:

>Adam Tarr says Approval voting can fit under "Yes/No voting" or "Ratings 
>voting", however I deny that plurality can be classified as a "yes/no" 
>voting method.
>
>Labeling a class of methods as "yes/no" to me implies a series of 
>independent questions where a valid respond can consider independent 
>responses on each question.

This is a reasonable criticism.  However, I once again refer you to the 
first line of the section, which is, "Single Winner systems can be 
classified by ballot type".  I think this is a reasonable approach (in fact 
it is the best approach I can come up with) and it clearly divides things 
into three categories.

I have struggled (and, in your opinion, failed) to come up with an adequate 
name for the simplest and most common sort of ballot - namely, the ballot 
where the voter is presented with a list of names with empty boxes next to 
each one.  I am very open to a better suggestion for a name.  Heck, 
"traditional ballot methods" versus "ranked ballot methods" versus "rated 
ballot methods" seems reasonable to me.  Would you consider that an 
improvement?

>A method that allows independent answers is a categorical "ratings method".

Provided the scale is independent of the number of candidates, I 
agree.  But a method that uses the simplest sort of ballots, is a method 
that uses the simplest sort of ballots.  A tautology, I know, but one that 
apparently needs repeating.

Also, for argument's sake, would this make Condorcet a ratings 
method?  After all, relative ranking is all that matters there.  If I put 
half the candidates in third place, and the other half in fourth place, I 
think my ballot is still valid.

>A method that has a limitations on answers can only be a "rank" system.

I would define rank systems by systems that ask the voter to submit an 
ordinal ranking.  So here I disagree.

You're trying to make the dichotomy be independent versus dependent 
choices, and I really don't think it fits.  As I have said exhaustively, 
we're basing this on the ballot type.  Basically, it comes down to slots 
per candidate.

Binary choice next to each candidate = traditional ballot, yes/no, up/down, 
whatever you want to call it
N slots for candidates (where N is the number of candidates plus or minus a 
fixed integer factor) = ranked ballot
N slots per candidate (N is independent of the number of candidates) = 
rated ballot

And yes, when N=2 in the third case, approval fits both the first and third 
categories.  I do not dispute this.

>It only makes sense to call "plurality" a "rank system". It simply limits 
>the ranking depth to one.

While this can be an academically useful way to look at plurality, I think 
it's a lousy way to classify plurality in an encyclopedia.  It seems 
confusing to the layman.

>If people disagree the wikipedia Voting system page should not have a "one 
>vote" category of single winner systems,

I still think that the ideas of "one vote" and "multiple vote" are poorly 
defined, as they are based on non-unique definitions of how to evaluate the 
ballots.

-Adam