[EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

Juho Laatu wrote:
> OK. Then the model is one where the
> voters may have various opinions on
> various matters but that doesn't
> necessarily mean that they would
> have a complete ordering of the
> candidates.
> 
> I can imagine that I could have e.g.
> cyclic opinions on food when there
> are three alternatives and three
> properties that I consider important
> (e.g. low fat, sweetness, nice colour)
> and of which I have clear opinions.
> With these parameters my preferences
> could thus form a logical cycle.
> 
> People have however also good
> problem solving abilities. If I'm in
> a restaurant sooner or later I'm
> usually able to make up my mind.
> Maybe by giving some weights to my
> preferences and then choosing my
> favourite food for today. I may also
> need to create opinions on topics
> that I had not thought before.
> 
> As a result I may have mapped my
> (already existing and maybe newly
> generated) logical rankings of
> different properties to ratings
> (that are transitive by nature).
> 
> What I mean is that it may quite OK
> to assume that people are able to
> find some preference order when
> voting. And therefore we can force
> them to do so.

If you absolutely have to have intransitivity (for instance, when 
judging contests), you could give each judge the option of submitting 
multiple ballots, but where the sum of the weight of these ballots are 
the same. If you want to judge based on sweetness, fat, and color, each 
of your votes count 1/3.

This would open up the possibility of new ways of strategic voting in 
trying to form a Condorcet cycle, so I don't think it's a good idea in a 
general election; but "if it's demanded, we can supply".