[EM] ¿Why do some absolutely hate ScoreVoting and insist on Ranked Ballots?

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 4/14/12 3:42 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>> >  	but your mapping makes the ranked ballot synonymous with the score ballot.  that is my point.
> 	In all voting systems, one counts votes at some point.  ScoreVoting is just more explicit about it.

no, Score voting does *not* count votes.  it totals scores or ratings.

Olympic judges are *not* voting for their favorite contestant.  they are 
scoring or rating them, ostensibly objectively.  but we go into the 
voting booth as *partisans* and we put *all* of the voting power we have 
(that is limited by "One person, one vote") behind the candidates that 
represent our political interests.

it's not the same.

>>>>> >>>>  	The ballot could allow ranking or ratings with equal rankings or ratings allowed. The rankings would then be converted to ratings like thus:
>> >  	so you're saying that we can have our choice between rating and ranking, as long as we choose rating.
> 	Frankly, I do not see what the big deal is, given that at some point one must quantify, anyway.

it's called "bait-and-switch", Ŭalabio.  you say "here is a method that 
should accommodate both you Ranked-Choice advocates and us Score 
advocates", but when we buy the product, we find that it is only a Score 
ballot.

in a system that quantifies according to the principle of 
One-person-one-vote, it doesn't matter that you like your candidate much 
more than i like my candidate.  our votes count equally anyway.

the ranked ballot is there *only* to deal with voter contingencies.  
unless it's Borda, then the ranked ballot is there to score the 
candidates in a crude manner.  that's why Borda is a crappy way to 
tabulate ranked ballots.

gotta go to New Hampshire (a possible swing state, Vermont is safe) to 
campaign for Obama.  talk to you guys later.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."