[EM] “¡One can introduce advanced voting systems to ponies, but one cannot make the ponies implement the advanced voting systems!”
km_elmet at lavabit.com
Wed Dec 5 08:40:13 PST 2012
On 12/03/2012 05:53 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> ¿How fare you?
> “¡One can introduce advanced voting systems to ponies, but one cannot
> make the ponies implement the advanced voting systems!”
> That is play off of the saying:
> “¡One can take an horse to water, but one cannot make the horse
I only read the beginning of that thread, but it seems they're agreeing
with RBJ: Score/Range asks too much of the voter. Perhaps they'd say
Approval asks too little, too, but I don't think they replied to your
suggestion to use Approval.
In any event, their objections (or arguments) seem to be based on the
difficulty of answering honestly, not on strategic concerns.
I'd say there's another method that fits in between and isn't too
complex: MJ. MJ doesn't use ratings (and clearly not ratings from
-999...999) but grades like "Poor", "Mediocre", "Good", etc. That should
be easier to deal with. More formally speaking, you can apply any
strongly monotone nonlinear transformation to the number values of the
MJ grades and still get the same ordering - at least I think so - which
is not the case for Score/Range.
And if grading is too hard, then Schulze should work. It's hard to
count, but there are websites that will do the actual counting.
More information about the Election-Methods