[EM] Centrist vs. non-Centrists (was A distance based method)

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/7/13 <fsimmons at pcc.edu>

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm
> > fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
> ...
> > There may also be another scenario where Majority Judgement (or
> > median
> > ratings, for that matter) would do better than ranked methods.
> > If it's
> > possible for the voters to agree on what, say, "Good" means
> > (comparability of utilities), then MJ might extract usable
> > cardinal
> > information from the voters, while the strategy resistance makes
> > the
> > cardinal information much less prone to the sort of Approval-
> > reduction
> > that you would see in Range. If one holds certain assumptions
> > that make
> > cardinal methods useful at all, then MJ could well be strategy
> > resistant
> > enough that it would do better than Range*.
> >
> > B&L spends quite a bit of their paper on the claim that the
> > voters *do*
> > agree on what the different categories mean, and so that there
> > is
> > comparability so that the cardinal information can be used.
>
> Instead of asking voters for "utility" values, ask them to rate the
> candidates on a scale of zero to 100%,
> where rating candidate X at 37% means that you think that 37% of the time
> candidate X would vote the
> same way that you would vote if you were there representing yourself.
>

I'd certainly be able to understand and use that system "honestly" if I
wanted, and for well-informed voters it seems reasonable. But I doubt that
your average "independent" voter, who looks on voting as a chore, would like
such a system.

I think B+L's method of using a commonly-understood grading method of a
society would be better for most people. In France, that means 0-20 or
"reject" to "excellent"; in the US, that would be the letter grades A-F
(without the "E" unless you went to Harvard) or their commonly-understood
corresponding numbers (90-100 = A, 80-89=B, etc).

(If you use letters, the MJ tiebreaker system assigns a + or - by itself,
although A+ and F- would be impossible. In AT-TV, this +/- would correspond
to order of election at a given rank.)

0-5 stars is also commonly used on the web, but it doesn't have any
anchoring meaning like the letter grades.

JQ

ps. Looking at current US politicians, I can well imagine that my "honest"
letter grades for both frontrunners would frequently be below the winning
median, which I imagine would be a C+ or B- in most cases, although B+L's
poll during the presidential primaries found that Obama would have actually
made it to the equivalent of B+.

In some cases, I would "strategically" inflate my preferred viable candidate
to a B. But on certain issues, I would be happy for the opportunity to say
to my preferred viable candidate: if you betray my ideals on this important
issue, I will in good conscience simply vote honestly. I will still prefer
you to your principal opponent, but this preference will do you no good, as
it will still be pulling down your median score.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110713/1c17a379/attachment.htm>