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

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Another approach to offering more
> flexibility (maybe not needed) and
> more strategy options (maybe not
> wanted) is to allow the voter to
> fill the pairwise matrix entries
> in whatever way. This means that
> also cycles can be recorded.

More flexibility can be obtained using a range/score like ballot.

For example, assuming a rating of 100 counts as 1 vote, if I rate one
candidate at 150 and another at 25, then that counts as a full vote in
favour of the first candidate.  However, if the difference is less
than 100, then the value entered into the matrix is only a fraction of
a vote.  The condorcet winner is then determined based on the sum of
all the matrices, as per normal condorcet.

What is nice about this method is it gives the voter full control over
what kind of voting method they would like.

It is possible to emulate
- approval
- range/score
- condorcet (equal ranks allowed)

This assumes that all the voters fill in the ballots in a certain way
for each method.

Allowing full flexibility (subject to a max value in each square) on
filling out the matrix itself would give the voters more freedom.
However, I think that would yield to massive voter overload.  Also,
there might be strategic issues.