# [EM] High Resolution Inferred Approval version of ASM

Mon Jun 24 12:29:20 PDT 2019

```Richard L,

of a "points system"?).
I infer from what you write that you are talking about methods that use
ranking ballots and just award points according
to some predetermined fixed schedule of so many points for being ranked
first and so many for being ranked second and
so on and then just elects the candidate with highest (or as with one
version of Borda I've heard of, the lowest) total score.

Why do you think that is relevant to my suggested VIASME method? To

> This is my favourite Condorcet method that uses high-intensity Score
> ballots (say 0-100):
>
> *Voters fill out high-intensity Score ballots (say 0-100) with many
> more available distinct scores
> (or rating slots) than there are candidates. Default score is zero.
>
> 1. Inferring ranking from scores, if there is a pairwise beats-all
> candidate that candidate wins.
>
> 2. Otherwise infer approval from score by interpreting each ballot as
> showing approval for the
> candidates it scores above the average (mean) of the scores it gives.
> Then use Approval Sorted Margins to order the candidates and eliminate
> the lowest-ordered
> candidate.
>
> 3. Among remaining candidates, ignoring eliminated candidates, repeat
> steps 1 and 2 until
> there is a winner.*
>
> To save time we can start by eliminating all the non-members of the
> Smith set and stop when
> we have ordered the last 3 candidates and then elect the
> highest-ordered one.
>
> https://electowiki.org/wiki/Approval_Sorted_Margins
>
> In simple 3-candidate case this is the same as Approval Sorted Margins
> where the voters signal
> their approval cut-offs  just by having a large gap in the scores they
> give.

It could be that you have misunderstood what I mean by "high intensity
Score ballots". It has nothing to
do with anything Borda-like.  The voter assign however many points to
each candidate that they wish.

In the US, "Score Voting" (formerly and also called "Range Voting") is a
version of Average Ratings where
the voters give candidates any score they like in the 0-99 inclusive range.

Actually since in VIASME the scores are only used to infer ranking and
sometimes approval, the individual voters
can in theory use any range of scores they like.

Chris Benham

On 25/06/2019 4:09 am, Richard Lung wrote:
>
> It's standard statistics. I refered to it occasionally over the years.
> To give a more representative summary of classes of data, they may be
> weighted. If no accurate information is available, the weights to
> respective classes may be assumed. Hence Borda method fits the
> statistical description, weighting in arithmetic progression. JFS
> Ross, Elections and Electors, 1955, suggested that the weighting would
> be more realistic using the geometric mean. This would be weighting in
> geometric progression. The British broadcaster Robin Day favored
> weighting in harmonic progression!
> But the point is they are all assumptions. This is the basic drawback
> to score voting systems.
> The other standard statistical phrase is weighting in arithmetic
> proportion, which applies when statisticians have the weighting data
> for the proportionate importance of the classes of data. An example of
> this well-defined count is the Gregory weighting of the total
> transferable vote or alternatively, and more consistently, the Meek
> method keep values.
> Of course, this accurate count does not apply to deficit votes, as
> well as surplus votes for candidates. That is, until FAB STV.
>
> By the way, as far as method of counting is concerned, FAB STV is
> unlike traditional STV in that it does not distinguish between AV and
> STV, because only the latter is PR with potential surplus transfers.
> Consequently, there is no special "single winner method" with FAB STV.
> But there is a but, which, without going into details, essentially is
> JS Mill distinction between democracy and maiorocracy.
>
> Richard L.
>
> On 24/06/2019 15:58, Chris Benham wrote:
>>
>> Richard L,
>>
>> Can you please expand a bit on the meaning and relevance of your
>> profound observation?
>>
>> What is your working definition of a "points system"? (I can perhaps
>> guess from your reference to the Borda method.)
>>
>> How is your reference to some variants of the multi-winner? Single
>> Transferable Vote algorithm relevant to the discussion of a
>> single-winner method?
>>
>> Chris Benham
>>
>> On 23/06/2019 11:54 pm, Richard Lung wrote:
>>> Points systems (Borda method is the archetype) are an assumed
>>> weighting of preferences. Gregory method transfer value or Meek
>>> method keep values are a real weighting of preferences.
>>>
>>> Richard L.
>>>
>>> On 20/06/2019 21:03, 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?
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
>>
>> 	Virus-free. www.avg.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20190625/f4586221/attachment-0001.html>
```