[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 5:42 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> And if the polls suggest that A & B are strong favorites and C is doing
> poorly, how should I vote to maximize my utility?
>
> The point of double-range is that it introduces a small random factor to
keep you honest. Thus, I don't think most societies would accept it as a
serious system, but it does demonstrate that cardinal ballots can have a
"meaning" beyond rankings.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110824/914addfb/attachment-0004.htm>