[EM] Re: Utilities?
atarr at purdue.edu
Sun Sep 5 09:44:20 PDT 2004
Jobst Heitzig wrote:
>EXACTLY! Don't worry about cyclic preferences! I certaintly don't since
>I know they are no problem at all for most serios methods we discuss
>here! That's exactly my point! Don't worry what properties the
>individual preferences might have that you might dislike or consider
>silly, since those properties just don't matter at all! Exactly what I'm
>saying all the time :-)
While they don't create a problem for most methods, allowing cyclic
preferences creates significant problems for most _ballots_. This is the
key point. Is the ability to express cyclic preferences requires a massive
ballot with every pair being voted on; contrasts that to the "A, B, C, D,
F" graded ballot that is trivial to vote properly on.
For every voter who really wants to express cyclic preferences, who is
helped by the pairwise comparison ballot, there will be dozens who submit
spoiled ballots because they don't understand the more complicated ballot,
who mark cyclic or mistaken (for them) preferences simply because they lose
track of things, or who fail to mark preferences they truly have because
they grow confused by the ballot.
For the record, I agree with James's criticism of the logic of cyclic
preferences. I have had this argument on the list a few times - I have not
yet been convinced that personal cyclic preferences are anything but
noise. With enough thought, you can resolve the inconsistency and produce
a transitive order.
Note that the previous paragraph is NOT the main reason I oppose pairwise
comparison ballots. It's just the reason I don't feel bad about it. The
main reason I oppose pairwise comparison ballots, and support graded
ballots, is simplicity for the voter.
More information about the Election-Methods