[EM] Fwd: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 236, Issue 18

[Closed Limelike Curves]

For me, personally, I'd probably minmax with range voting. But I don't
think score is any more complicated than approval voting, and Warren D.
Smith argues (IMO convincingly) that Score is more likely to stick in the
long run because it reduces the number of voters who bullet vote, which deals
with one common concern, and because it's more popular with third parties
because of the nursery effect. (STAR is even better for this, since it
makes bullet voting less attractive strategically and appeals to people who
like IRV'S runoff.)

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:54 PM Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 12:52
> Subject: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 236, Issue 18
> To: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
>
>
> Who knows. I hope Progressives don’t. In public political elections with
> Score, all-or-nothing rating is optimal, & I’d advise Progressives to rate
> all-or-nothing.
>
> The legitimate use for Score’s partial ratings would be only for when it’s
> genuinely uncertain whether or not a candidate should get an approval.
>
> That’s Score’s luxury-convenience.
>
> But I don’t want it. In Approval, you can give a probabilistic partial
> approval when it’s uncertain whether a candidate rates approval:
>
> Flip a coin, to give hir 50% probability of approval. Or draw one of 3
> numbers from a bag , for a 1/3 approval-probability.
>
> Or number 10 paper squares of paper from 0 to 9, & twice draw one from the
> bag (with replacement), to write a 2-digit number from 0 to 99.  …in order
> to approve the candidate with any desired probability from 1% to 99%.
>
> But don’t complicate & elaborate the method, don’t lose Approval’s
> absolute minimalness & unique complete unarbitrariness, because you don’t
> want to do something for yourself.
>
> Don’t lose Approval’s uniquely easy proposal, implementation,
> administration & security-auditing because you want Score to do partial
> rating for you.
>
> At EM, Robert recently made the same comment that he made here. I answered
> it there.  …a long & thorough answer.
>
> In the current poll, everyone participating, including me, is rating
> sincerely in the Score ballotings because there’s no reason not to. Nothing
> is at stake.
>
> We have a rank-balloting, to be counted by RP(wv), to, strategy-free, show
> the CW.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 22:07 robert bristow-johnson <
> rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 03/11/2024 11:22 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves <
>> closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I wonder if what we really want is to take pairwise differences in
>> scores, then calculate the median difference for each pair of candidates.
>> That might give you a system that behaves like Condorcet but still accounts
>> for intensity of preferences. (Is that a thing?)
>> >
>>
>> Do you actually think that in a competitive partisan political election
>> where voters have a stake in the outcome, want to prevail politically, and
>> vote by secret ballot that they would mark their ballots honestly about
>> intensity of preference?
>>
>> "My system is only intended for honest men." Jean-Charles de Borda
>>
>> --
>>
>> r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com
>>
>> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
> ----
> 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/20240314/ea2c0d51/attachment.htm>