<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=912264223-30112005><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Rob has pretty much hit the nail on the
head.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> election-methods-bounces@electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-bounces@electorama.com] <B>On Behalf Of </B>rob
brown<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:17 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
election-methods@electorama.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [EM] ignoring "strength of
opinion"<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I was thinking about Paul K's statement (in several different threads,
hence my top post) that condorcet elections throw important ballot data
away. I'm not trying to pick on Paul, but it got me thinking.
Trying to come up with a way to wrap my head around the concept, I came up
with a simplified example.<BR><BR>Imagine a very simple poll that asks your
yes/no opinion on a single issue. Say the question is "do you think
sales tax should be raised by 2%?"<BR><BR>In addition to the "yes / no" check
boxes, the ballot designers decided it might be useful to also ask the
question "on a scale of 1-10, how strongly do you feel about this issue?"<SPAN
class=912264223-30112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=912264223-30112005></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=912264223-30112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>This
is kind of improtant, but most pollsters who come up with such a bad question
don't bother. If the original question had been phrased as ""strongly
agree, slightly agreee, Neutral, slightly disagree, strongly
disagreee" instead of yes/no it would have provided more information
about preferences. </FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>When it comes to tablulation,
should the responses to the second question be taken into account, or should
they be ignored?<SPAN class=912264223-30112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=912264223-30112005></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=912264223-30112005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Igore the answers to the second question at the risk of having the
voters dislike the results.</FONT> </SPAN><BR><BR>>From a purely
utilitarian point of view (i.e. "greatest happiness"), it makes a lot of sense
to give more weight to the opinions of those who feel more strongly. But
common sense tells us why this is a bad idea. Intentionally ignoring
this information (or, more likely, not collecting it in the first place) is
the only thing that makes sense....otherwise people who had any opinion
whatsover would have an incentive to vote insincerely, saying they felt very
strongly so as to have the most impact on the outcome. <BR><BR>I believe that
condorcet elections intentionally ignore "strength of opinion" information for
the exact same practical reason. Since there is no way to avoid
collecting some strength of oopinion information (while still collecting the
information we *do* need), we have to consciously, intentionally ignore that
information in the tabulation. This is NOT a bad thing.<BR><BR>BTW, I
think this is also relevant to range voting, which from my point of view is
flawed for the same reason.<BR><BR>-rob<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>