[EM] Truncation (was re: Defeat Strength)

[Juho Laatu]

In addition to that, I still have some interest in the ranked rankings style votes (A>>B>C) where one preference step is considered more important than another step (forming a tree of preferences or something like that). I have not done my homework on this (been lazy for the last decade). Do you know if that approach would likely suffer from some (strategic voting or vote counting complexity related) problems that would make it unusable?

Juho


> On 12. Sep 2022, at 12.39, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:
> 
> On 9/11/22 16:31, Juho Laatu wrote:
>> It is an interesting theoretical area of study to see what kind of
>> additional information we could use (up to free form algorithms), but
>> for large competitive single winner elections with independent voters
>> the basic approach of ranking + "equal last" seems to be a stable basis.
>> (Different strength preferences (A>>B>C) might be useful somewhere - or
>> seriously - maybe not really :-) .)
> 
> I would probably say that we can define honesty for ranked ballots and for von Neumann-Morgenstern utilities, but anything beyond that and it gets really hard. And if we can't define honesty, then methods can get away with externalizing their burden on the voters the way Range does.
> 
> As for different strength prefereces, it feels kind of like "neither this nor that". I'd rather have an automatically normalized rated ballot (if utilities are important) or MJ-style grades or plain rankings (if not).
> 
> (Personally, I'd imagine what voters can reliably answer lies somewhere between rankings and vNM utilities. Just where, I don't know, though.)
> 
> -km