[EM] another wiki poll - assign ratings to single-winner methods!

James Green-Armytage jarmyta at antioch-college.edu
Tue Jun 28 19:21:09 PDT 2005

Hi Juho,
	Your questions are good. I will try to answer them as well as I can. For
reference, the poll in question is at this address:

>The guidelines are quite clear, no problem with them. I had however 
>some other problems that stopped me from answering the questionnaire 
>right away.
>- I'm not familiar enough with the properties of all the methods to 
>answer all the questions

	If you are really unfamiliar with a method, you can just put a question
mark in that space. If you are semi-familiar with a method, and unsure
about your rating, you can put a question mark next to your rating. You
can always go back and change your rating of any method whenever you like.
This info is written at the top of the poll's page.

>- It is not easy to rate with numbers e.g. methods that provide good 
>results but are weak against strategies vs. methods that behave the 
>other way around

	The question of the poll for each method is "how well will the method
perform in a large, contentious electorate?" When I say that the
electorate is contentious, I mean that voters with opposing opinions are
competing with one another, which I mean to imply that they will be
inclined to use tactical voting. So, please assume that tactics will play
a role.
>- Similar problems with other criteria
>- Also the fact that some methods could be perfect for one use but not 
>so good for another caused some problems (=> should I give full points 
>to methods that are perfect for one use or should I educe points if 
>they don't fit at all in some other place)

	Please assume that the method is being used to elect an executive (e.g.
mayor, president, etc.)
	In general, to facilitate comparison, it is probably best to pick one
voting scenario and apply it to all methods. If you want to get very
fancy, you can use multiple scenarios (but the same scenarios for each
method!), and take some sort of weighted average of performance for each
scenario. But I don't recommend that!
	It may be hard to use ratings rather than rankings, but if you like, you
can use the ratings primarily to communicate your ordinal preferences. One
reason I didn't use rankings is that everyone would have to recalculate
their rankings every time a new method was added (an intolerable hassle).
If you can also use rating gaps of different sizes to communicate some
strength of preference information, so much the better.

my best,
James Green-Armytage

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list