[EM] range voting, properties with strategic re-voting, and utilitarianism

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:21 AM 8/30/2005, Warren Smith wrote:
> >Interesting experience, quite opposite to mine. May I ask you how 
> they do it without having
> >to know the difference between 64 and 65 points as you suggested above?

Warren is correct. People know how to use rating systems. Or at least 
they think they do. In fact, there is no clear meaning to intermediate ratings.


>--I do not know how they do it.  I merely know I did a range voting 
>exit poll of 122
>real-world voters in 2004, and this is what happened.  You can read about it
>    http://math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html  #82.

In a poll, people may very well behave differently than in an 
election. A poll is not an electoral act, the consequences are only 
informational. In an election, people can live or die based on the results....

Okay, I'm walking out to of the polling booth, and this pleasant man 
comes up to me and asks me if I'm willing to participate in a study 
by taking a poll. He asks me to rate a list of candidates, from 0 to 
100 I think was the range allowed. So I'll just answer, or not, I'm 
not very likely to ask him what, say, 50 *means*. And am I giving 
utility values or am I giving opinions of the character or 
intelligence of the candidate? (Or both?) I might not even think 
about this at all. As is noted in the study, it seems that most 
voters were interested primarily in a quick disposition....

Now, take this same voter in the voting booth. He either knows or it 
is explained to him what Range is. His scores will be combined with 
those of others to select the winner. Quite simply, we do not know 
how closely his behavior will resemble that in a poll. It might be 
*quite* different. Yes, Warren is correct that the poll is, in a 
sense, all we have to go on. But we must also keep in mind that the 
poll was badly flawed, that some of its results are anomalous, and 
that there may have been substantial bias introduced by the takers of 
the polls. One can notice that, for example, the data collected by 
Mr. Smith and the data collected by his colleague vary greatly in the 
number of respondents who, apparently, refused to answer some of the questions.

The study is a first step, and Mr. Smith is to be commended for at 
least trying to find out what real-world behavior of these systems 
might be. But it's still a baby step, and we don't ask babies to 
carry the world.