[EM] High Resolution Inferred Approval version of ASM

John john.r.moser at gmail.com
Fri Jun 21 05:23:43 PDT 2019

Voters can't readily provide meaningful information as score voting. It's
highly-strategic and the comparison of cardinal values is not natural.

All valuation is ordinal.  Prices are based from cost; but what people WILL
pay, given no option to pay less, is based on ordinal comparison.

Is X worth 2 Y?

For the $1,000 iPhone I could have a OnePlus 6t and a Chromebook. The
6t...I can get a cheaper smartphone, but I prefer the 6t to that phone plus
whatever else I buy.

I have a higher paying job, so each dollar is worth fewer hours, so the
ordinal value of a dollar to me is lower.  $600 of my dollars is fewer
hours than $600 minimum wage dollars.  I have access to my most-preferred
purchases and can buy way down into my less-preferred purchases.

Information about this is difficult to pin down by voter.  Prices in the
stock market set by a constant, public auction among millions of buyers and
sellers.  A single buyer can hardly price one stock against another, and
prices against what they think their gains will be relative to current

When pricing candidates, you'll see a lot like Mohs hardness: 2 is 200, 3
is 500, 4 is 1,500; but we label things that are 250 or 450 as 2.5,
likewise between 500 and 1,500 is 3.5.  Being between X and Y is always
immediately HALFWAY between X and Y, most intuitively.

The rated system sucks even before you factor in strategic concerns (which
only matter if actually using a score-driven method).

Approval is just low-resolution (1 bit) score voting.

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:01 AM C.Benham <cbenham at adam.com.au> wrote:

> Forest,
> With paper and pencil ballots and the voters only writing in their
> numerical scores it probably isn't very practical for the Australian
> Electoral Commission
> hand vote-counters.
> But if it isn't compulsory to mark each candidate and the default score is
> zero, I'm sure the voters could quickly adapt.
> In the US I gather that there is at least one reform proposal to use these
> type of ballots. One of these, "Score Voting" aka "Range Voting",
> proposes to just use Average Ratings with I gather the default score being
> "no opinion"  rather than zero and some tweak to prevent an unknown
> candidate from winning.
> So it struck me that if we can collect such a large amount of detailed
> information from the voters then we could do a lot more with it, and if we
> want something that meets the Condorcet criterion this is my suggestion.
> Chris Benham
> https://rangevoting.org/
> *How score voting works:*
>    1. Each vote <https://rangevoting.org/MeaningOfVote.html> consists of
>    a numerical score within some range (say 0 to 99
>    <https://rangevoting.org/Why99.html>) for each candidate. Simpler is 0
>    to 9 ("single digit score voting").
> On 21/06/2019 5:33 am, Forest Simmons wrote:
> Chris, I like it especially the part about naive voters voting sincerely
> being at no appreciable disadvantage while resisting burial and complying
> with  the CD criterion.
> From your experience in Australia where full rankings are required (as I
> understand it) what do you think about the practicality of rating on a
> scale of zero to 99, as compared with ranking a long list of candidates?
> Is it a big obstacle?
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-4885-b> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-4885-b>
> <#m_-816986146098263387_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20190621/57ddff14/attachment.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list