[EM] Efforts to improve on CR's strategy

[Brian Olson]

On May 20, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Bart Ingles wrote:

> I see that now.  What you call "ExaggerateCR" is what I would call
> "sincere CR", since the voter should at least give maximum points to 
> his
> favorite, and minimum to his least favorite.  Otherwise the voters
> aren't sincere, they're just being stupid, in effect partially
> abstaining.
>
> It's even worse with what you call "SincereAV", since a voter with all
> positive or all negative unnormalized ratings would either approve all
> or not vote at all.  This would be senseless behavior on the part of a
> voter.

Nonsense! It can be highly valuable to have a 'none-of-the-above' 
election. If no one wins a sufficient vote, Junk all the candidates, 
disqualify them from the next election, and have a new election.

Well, that's dependent on the process of getting on the ballot. If the 
process of getting on the ballot is such that only bad choices get on, 
there are deeper problems with the system than an election method can 
fix.

Also, I would love to see a ballot where I felt so warm and fuzzy about 
all the choices that I have them all positive ratings. I'd do it, too, 
if ever presented with such a situation, knowing full well it might not 
maximize my chances of getting _which one_ I wanted. Beyond the simple 
mechanics of choosing a winner, the various statistics collected about 
voting have a psychological effect on the electorate and the elected in 
the time after. Although, One around here seems oblivious to having 
lost the popular vote.


Brian Olson
http://bolson.org/