[EM] RE : Are proposed methods asymptotically aproaching some limit of utility?

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Sun Mar 11 11:37:04 PDT 2007


--- Matthew Welland <matt at kiatoa.com> a écrit :
> I can't follow every thread but I'm starting to think that the search for
> some perfect voting method is asymptotically approaching some sort of 
> limit.

I would say it's taking more effort to make smaller gains. I don't think
of interesting new methods as often as I used to.

> I see several important qualities to consider:
> 1. How hard is the system to describe to others and to implement.
> 2. Will the ratio of people satisfied to dissatisifed with the results
>     be greater than 1. A "satisficity(*) ratio" if you will.
> 3. Voting effort. How much effort does it take to express your vote?
> Voting system  Complexity  Satisficity(*)    Voting Effort
> ------------------  ---------------  ---------------    ----------------
> Pluratlity              simple         terrible              low
> Approval              simple         ok to good        low
> Condorcet           complex       good?               medium
> Range                  simple         good                 medium

I need to know better what "satisfied" means. Depending on this I would
say you could make the argument that Range has potentially poorer 
satisficity than Approval.

Which of these methods I would use depends on the nature of the elections
and the voters. If I don't want to assume that voters will courteously
vote sincerely (even when this limits their power to affect the results),
then I wouldn't use Range, as the result will be rather randomly skewed
based on who chose to exaggerate and who didn't.

> Based on what I know now I would settle on Range Voting. However for a
> while 
> I was dead set on approval voting and before that I was advocating IRV.
> Is 
> Range Voting "satisficient" or are its flaws or limitations serious
> enough 
> that there are many scenarios where it will fail to meet a satisficity 
> ratio of greater than one?
> (*) My definition is "degree to which it satisfies" which may differ from
> definitions found out on the web :-) and yes, I know I should be using 
> Bayesian Regret but a)  don't really understand it and b) I like the
> sound 
> of satisficity.

I think on this list it is more common to just refer to "social utility."
For instance, I might sincerely rate every candidate on some fixed
scale, like 0-100. The candidate with the highest total sincere rating
is ideal in some sense. And you could compare methods by how they perform
relative to this ideal.

You seem to want to use a ratio. But I think I would still use social
utility when defining it.

Kevin Venzke


Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! 
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses 

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list