[EM] “¡One can introduce advanced voting systems to ponies, but one cannot make the ponies implement the advanced voting systems!”

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 12/03/2012 05:53 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> ¡Hello!
>
> ¿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
> drink!”

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.