[EM] Borda-likes (was: Just to let you know...)

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Richard,

Le samedi 14 janvier 2023 à 08:54:57 UTC−6, Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com> a écrit :
> Pierre-Simon Laplace refuted  Condorcet pairing, over two centuries ago,
> because it treats preferences as of equal importance. He thought Borda
> better. In statistics, it's called weighting in arithmetic progression.

Your method does seem similar to Borda. Do you have any arguments as to why Binomial STV is
better than Borda? There's nothing really wrong with Borda in your view, is there?

> "The spoiler" candidate is only the point of view of the candidate
> supporters, who want him removed for a Second Ballot. If you want to
> adequately take into account the values of the spoilers supporters, then
> you have to keep in context an over-all ballot of all the candidates,
> otherwise this breaks the law of conservation of (preference)
> information (which Binomial STV obeys).

Well, I don't know what that law is, but I don't feel that Borda-likes adequately address
spoilers. Whenever a voted majority favorite isn't elected, there will be a debate about
who spoiled it.

> Preference cycles rapidly disappear, at an exponential rate, the more
> candidates there are. The three candidate cycle could only be important
> to a focus on minimum choice elections. Two candidates are always a
> cycle but no-one complains about that. Democratic elections are about
> choice, not merely minimal choice.

In what way could there be a preference cycle with two candidates? Can you show the ballots?

Kevin
votingmethods.net