[EM] High Resolution Inferred Approval version of ASM

C.Benham cbenham at adam.com.au
Fri Jun 21 12:07:14 PDT 2019


With the VIASME method I'm proposing the voters just have to give 
candidates they rank higher more points than those they rank lower,
and score the candidates approximately accurately according to how they 
rate them relative to each other.

I don't understand why you think that is a problem. What types of ballot 
do you like?

Chris Benham

On 21/06/2019 9:53 pm, John wrote:
> 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 price.
> 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 
> <mailto: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. Eachvote <https://rangevoting.org/MeaningOfVote.html>consists
>>         of a numerical score within some range (say0 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>

This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20190622/188a8f15/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list