[EM] Why the concept of "sincere" votes in Range is flawed.
Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-elmet at broadpark.no
Wed Jan 28 08:55:49 PST 2009
Juho Laatu wrote:
> A = 1000
> B = 200
> max_support = 100
> C = 50
> approval = 30
> D = 1
> min_support = 0
> E = 0
> F = -100
> max_preference_strength = 10
>
> Approval interpretation is A=B=C>D=E=F.
> Range interpretation is A=B=100, C=50, D=1, E=F=0.
> Rankings interpretation is A>B>C>D>E>F.
> Rankings interpretation with preference strengths is A>B>C>D>(0.1)>E>F
>
> I'm not sure if anyone really wants
> all this. The first practical
> implementation might be a Condorcet
> election that covers also ratings
> data for polls.
If you're going to do Condorcet and Range comparisons, a simple Range
ballot would suffice. Then, if candidate a has a lower score than b, in
the transformed ranked ballot (to use for Condorcet), b > a.
It seems quite hard to defend the request for Range type information if
such information isn't actually going to be used. Therefore, unless
either Range or cardinal weighted pairwise is to be used, I agree with
you: it would only be of polling use.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list