[EM] the "meaning" of a vote (or lack thereof)

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/8/24 Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com>

> On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:33 AM, Warren Smith wrote:
>
> >> Lundell:
> >> Arrow would not, I think, quarrel with the claim that a cardinal ballot
> has a pragmatic/operational "meaning" as a function of its use in
> determining a winner.
> >>
> >> But but it's an unwarranted leap from that claim to use the ballot
> scores as a measure of utility. Arrows objection to cardinal scores, or one
> of them, is that they are not and cannot be commensurable across voters.
> >
> > --(1) using, not range voting, but DOUBLE RANGE VOTING,
> > described here:
> >   http://rangevoting.org/PuzzRevealU2.html
> > the ballot scores ARE utilities for a strategic-honest voter.  Any
> > voter who foolishly
> > uses non-utilities as her scores on her ballot, will get a worse
> > election result in expectation.  This was not an "unwarranted leap,"
> > this was a "new advance"
> > because the Simmons/Smith double-range-voting system is the first
> > voting system which (a) is good and which (b) incentivizes honest
> > utility-revelation (and only honest) by voters.
>
> It still seems to me that you're arguing in a circle. A utility score needs
> to have meaning logically prior to a voting system in order for a voter to
> vote in the first place. What is utility, from the point of view of a voter?
>
> Let me put the question another way. Suppose I'd rank three candidates A >
> B > C.
>
> On what grounds do I decide that (say) A=1.0 B=0.5 C=0.0 is honest, but
> A=1.0 B=0.7 C=0.0 is dishonest?
>
> In double-range, you'd say that if you felt that B was clearly better than
a 50/50 chance of A or C, but as good as a 70/30 chance.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110824/c61254db/attachment-0002.htm>