jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Mon Jan 6 10:52:46 PST 2014
Heh. R B-J correctly says that Borda is a restricted version of Score. But
whereas he'd locate Borda's flaw in the "score" part, I'd put it in the
"restricted" part. In fact, I think score is a pretty good system; though
vulnerable to strategy, it reduces to approval with pure strategy, which is
still perfectly fine.
Nevertheless, we both agree that Borda is brain-dead. It's utterly false to
say that ranking in Borda minimizes the effects of any strategic voting. To
me, it's just about the only system which would consistently do worse than
plurality in practice. In fact, it may actually do worse than random winner.
When you have people who are on the opposite ends of the spectrum about
score voting both agreeing that Borda is horrible, I think that says
2014/1/4 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> On 1/4/14 2:50 PM, Dick Burkhart wrote:
>> The fundamental problem with criteria based on “X over Y” preferences
>> (Condorcet, Mutual Majority, etc.) is that all such criteria ignore the
>> intensity of the preference (a ranking of 5 to1 counts the same as 3 to 2,
>> for example). This is why Borda-type methods are superior – they don’t
>> throw away critical information. Donald Saari explains the mathematics of
>> this well in “Decisions and Elections”.
> didn't expect to see anyone plugging Borda here. Borda is a variant of
> Score voting. like Score, it requires too much information from voters,
> imposes more "meaning" to the ranking than the voters might intend to mean,
> and is totally fraught with strategy/tactic.
> pretty much "ick".
> first imagine a two-possible-outcome election with a binary choice.
> everyone (even the plurality guys) agree how that election should be
> decided. now it doesn't matter that you really, really, really, really,
> really like your candidate and i only marginally prefer mine. my vote
> counts just as much as yours. by ranking Candidate A higher than Candidate
> B only means that between A and B, i prefer A more. that's all. if i rank
> A>B>C, all that means is that i prefer A over B in a mano-a-mano race and
> likewise B over C and between A and C, all we know is that i would vote for
> A. and whether i nearly prefer A, B, and C equally (but if you force me to
> choose, i take A over B and C and B over C) or i hate C's guts, my vote for
> A or B over C still just counts as one vote. that is the fundamental
> failing of Borda or Score voting.
> we're not judges at the Winter Olympics holding up score cards. we're
> partisans. and, depending on the circumstances, with Borda or Score, we may
> end up amplifying our choice insincerely to try to get our favorite elected.
> r b-j rbj at audioimagination.com
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods