[EM] Condorcet meeting

[Colin Champion]

Also, I'm not sure if cardinal voting (such as Star) solves anything. 
For most voters, sorting a list of candidates has quadratic work, and 
has to be avoided if the field is large. But is cardinal voting any 
better? If the scores had an intrinsic meaning, you could work through 
the list and assign the correct value to each candidate. But they don't, 
so you'll start by assigning tentative scores until you find an 
inconsistency - eg. two candidates have the same score but vastly 
different acceptability - and then you have to adjust the numbers you've 
already given. You'll probably end up sorting and grouping into quintiles.
    CJC

On 24/08/2023 14:31, Colin Champion wrote:
> On 24/08/2023 14:02, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> > My intuitive response is to do some type of open Approval primary.
> > The incommensurability and chicken dilemma problems hit a lot less
> > when there are 5 candidates to spread the error over.
>
> I wouldn't have thought that this would work very well. One of the 
> problems is that most voters will not initially know much about most 
> candidates, so they won't give them approval.
>    It seems to me that voter ignorance is the main problem with ranked 
> voting if the field is large. Voters will truncate out the candidates 
> they don't know much about, and this will be misinterpreted as a low 
> preference. So the first round should give obscure candidates a chance 
> of the spotlight.
>    CJC
>
>> On 2023-08-24 14:29, Colin Champion wrote:
>>> One of the agenda items is "rules for reducing a large field of 
>>> candidates to a field of 2 to 5". This seems to me an important 
>>> topic, since voters cannot be expected to vote in the way ranked 
>>> preference methods assume if the number of candidates is large. 
>>> Presumably proposals have been made for addressing it; unfortunately 
>>> I haven't seen them.
>>
>> My intuitive response is to do some type of open Approval primary. 
>> The incommensurability and chicken dilemma problems hit a lot less 
>> when there are 5 candidates to spread the error over.
>>
>> Of course, the naive STAR approach is not cloneproof, which is a bit 
>> of a bummer.
>>
>> From one perspective, we'd *want* the "ranked general" to have a pool 
>> of differing shades of centrist, because the general's purpose would 
>> be to determine which out of the reduced pool is actually the best 
>> candidate. But this approach seems to be fundamentally clone 
>> vulnerable, i.e. it's not something you could patch up, because 
>> clones of the winner would all seem to be reasonable centrists in 
>> their own right. There's a tension between doing most of the 
>> median-finding in the primary, and clone independence.
>>
>> So there may still be room for proportional voting type patches, even 
>> though they draw the general further from the idea of closely 
>> scrutinizing similar candidates, and even though they are somewhat 
>> ugly kludges.
>>
>> Or perhaps there exists a better method :-)
>>
>> -km
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list 
> info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230824/223b2301/attachment-0001.htm>