<div dir="auto">Also it's well-understood ratings are of poor quality in online reviews. There is a lot of research into how people overemphasize bad experiences as low ratings, and give inflated good ratings. A lot of products have more 5 and 1 star ratings than 3 star ratings.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That's not the same thing as comparatively scaling things, which is even harder. There's a reason we have a lot of top 10 lists and a lot of rankings for things.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 7:45 PM John <<a href="mailto:john.r.moser@gmail.com">john.r.moser@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">The error comes when you make inferences.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The great purported benefit of score systems is that more voters can rank A over B, yet due to the scores score can elect B:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A:1.0 B:0.9 C:0.1</div><div dir="auto">C:1.0 A:0.5 B:0.4</div><div dir="auto">B:1.0 A:0.2 C:0.1</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A=1.7, B=2.3, C=2.2</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Both B and C defeat A, despite A defeating both ranked.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If the first voter scores B as 0.7, C wins.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Whenever a system attempts to use score or its low-resolution Approval variant, it is relying on this information.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So why does this matter?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The voters are 100% certain and precise that these are their votes:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A>B>C</div><div dir="auto">C>A>B</div><div dir="auto">B>A>C</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">We know A defeats B, A defeats C, and B defeats C. A is the Condorcet winner.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For score votes, 1.0 is always 1.0. It's the first rank, the measure. This is of course another source of information distortion in cardinal systems: how is the information meaningful as a comparison between two voters?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How do you know 10 voters voting A first at 1.0 aren't half as invested in A as 6 voters voting B 1.0, this really A=5 B=6?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ten of us prefer strawberry to peanut butter.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Six of us WILL DIE IF YOU OPEN A JAR OF PEANUT BUTTER HERE.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Score systems claim to represent this and capture this information, but they can't.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">(Notice I used the negative: that 1.0 vote is an expression of the damage of their 0.0-scored alternative.)</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Even setting that aside, however, you have a problem where an individual might put down 0.7 or 0.9 or 0.5 for the SAME candidate in the SAME election, solely based on how bad they are at creating a cardinal comparison. Humans are universally bad at cardinal comparison.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So now you can actually elect A, B, or C based on how well-rested people are, how hungry they are, or anything else that impacts their mood and thus the sharpness or softness by which they critically compare candidates.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It's a sort of random number generator.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Wrapping it in a better system and using that information to make auxiliary decisions is still incorporating bad data. Bad data is worse than no data.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 7:27 PM Felix Sargent <<a href="mailto:felix.sargent@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">felix.sargent@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>I don't know how you can think that blurrier data would end up with a more precise result. <br></div><div>No matter how you cut it, if you rank ABCD then it translates into a score of <br></div><div>
<div dir="auto">A: 1.0</div><div dir="auto">B: .75<br></div><div dir="auto">C: 0.5</div><div dir="auto">D: 0.25</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>There's no way of describing differences between candidates beyond a straight line between first place and last place. <br></div><div>Even if the voter is imprecise in the difference between A and B they will never make the error of rating B more than A, whereas the error between a voter's actual preferences and the preferences that are recorded with an ordinal ballot has the liability of being massive. Consider I like A and B but HATE C. ABC does not tell you that.<br></div><div>That's not even going into what happens when a voter ranks an ordinal ballot strategically, placing "guaranteed losers" to 2nd and 3rd places in order to improve the chances of their first choice candidate (in IRV at least). <br></div>
</div><div><br></div><div>Your analysis depends on the question of how intelligent you believe the average voter to be. <br></div><div>If voters can use Amazon and Yelp star ratings, they can do score voting.<br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="m_-1872951113151025140m_3685997563850768520gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><a href="https://felixsargent.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Felix Sargent</a><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:14 PM John <<a href="mailto:john.r.moser@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">john.r.moser@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Cardinal voting collects higher-resolution data, but not necessarily precise data.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let's say you score candidates:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A: 1.0</div><div dir="auto">B: 0.5</div><div dir="auto">C: 0.25</div><div dir="auto">D: 0.1</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">In reality, B is 90% as favored as A. C is 70% as favored as B. The real numbers would be:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A: 1.0</div><div dir="auto">B: 0.9</div><div dir="auto">C: 0.63</div><div dir="auto">D: etc.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How would this happen?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cardinal: I approve of A 90% as much as B.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Natural and honest: I prefer A to win, and I am not just as happy with B winning, or close to it. I feel maybe half as good about that? B is between C and D and I don't like C, but I like D less.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Strategic: even voting 0.5 for B means possibly helping B beat A, but what if C wins...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The strategic nightmare is inherent to score and approval systems. When approvals aren't used to elect but only for data, people are not naturally inclined to analyze a score representing their actual approval.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Why?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Because people decide by simulation. Simulation of ordinal preference is easy: I like A over B. Even then, sometimes you can't seem to decide who is better.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Working out precisely how much I approve of A versus B is harder. It takes a lot of effort and the basic simulation approach responds heavily to how good you feel about A losing to B, not about how much B satisfies you on a scale of 0 to A.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Score and approval voting source a high-error, low-confidence sample. It's like recording climate data by licking your finger and holding it in the wind each day, then writing down what you think is the temperature. Someone will say, "it's more data than warmer/colder trends!" While ignoring that you are not Mercury in a graduated cylinder.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:10 PM Felix Sargent <<a href="mailto:felix.sargent@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">felix.sargent@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Valuation can be ordinal, in that you can know that 3 is more than 2.</div><div>There are two questions before us: Which voting method collects more data? Which tabulation method picks the best winner from that data?</div><div><br></div><div>Which voting method collects more data?</div><div>Cardinal voting collects higher resolution data than ordinal voting. Consider this thought experiment. If I give you a rating of A:5 B:2 C:1 D:3 E:5 F:2 you should create an ordered list from that -- AEDFBC. If I gave you AEDFBC you couldn't convert that back into its cardinal data.</div><div><br></div><div>Which tabulation picks a better winner from the data?</div><div>Both Score and Approval voting pick the person with the highest votes.</div><div>Summing ordinal data, on the other hand, is very complicated, as to avoid loops. Methods like Condorcet or IRV have been proposed to eliminate those but ultimately they're hacks for dealing with incomplete information.</div><div><br></div><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="m_-1872951113151025140m_3685997563850768520gmail-m_-2045031879217701627m_-57446879386365185gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><a href="https://felixsargent.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Felix Sargent</a><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:23 AM John <<a href="mailto:john.r.moser@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">john.r.moser@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Voters can't readily provide meaningful information as score voting. It's highly-strategic and the comparison of cardinal values is not natural.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">All valuation is ordinal. Prices are based from cost; but what people WILL pay, given no option to pay less, is based on ordinal comparison.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is X worth 2 Y?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For the <span class="m_-1872951113151025140m_3685997563850768520gmail-m_-2045031879217701627m_-57446879386365185gmail-m_-253417112080945646money">$1,000</span> iPhone I could have a OnePlus 6t and a Chromebook. The 6t...I can get a cheaper smartphone, but I prefer the 6t to that phone plus whatever else I buy.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I have a higher paying job, so each dollar is worth fewer hours, so the ordinal value of a dollar to me is lower. <span class="m_-1872951113151025140m_3685997563850768520gmail-m_-2045031879217701627m_-57446879386365185gmail-m_-253417112080945646money">$600</span> of my dollars is fewer hours than <span class="m_-1872951113151025140m_3685997563850768520gmail-m_-2045031879217701627m_-57446879386365185gmail-m_-253417112080945646money">$600</span> minimum wage dollars. I have access to my most-preferred purchases and can buy way down into my less-preferred purchases.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Information about this is difficult to pin down by voter. Prices in the stock market set by a constant, public auction among millions of buyers and sellers. A single buyer can hardly price one stock against another, and prices against what they think their gains will be relative to current price.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">When pricing candidates, you'll see a lot like Mohs hardness: 2 is 200, 3 is 500, 4 is 1,500; but we label things that are 250 or 450 as 2.5, likewise between 500 and 1,500 is 3.5. Being between X and Y is always immediately HALFWAY between X and Y, most intuitively.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The rated system sucks even before you factor in strategic concerns (which only matter if actually using a score-driven method).</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Approval is just low-resolution (1 bit) score voting.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:01 AM C.Benham <<a href="mailto:cbenham@adam.com.au" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">cbenham@adam.com.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Forest,<br>
<br>
With paper and pencil ballots and the voters only writing in their
numerical scores it probably isn't very practical for the
Australian Electoral Commission<br>
hand vote-counters.<br>
<br>
But if it isn't compulsory to mark each candidate and the default
score is zero, I'm sure the voters could quickly adapt.<br>
<br>
In the US I gather that there is at least one reform proposal to
use these type of ballots. One of these, "Score Voting" aka "Range
Voting", <br>
proposes to just use Average Ratings with I gather the default
score being "no opinion" rather than zero and some tweak to
prevent an unknown<br>
candidate from winning.<br>
<br>
So it struck me that if we can collect such a large amount of
detailed information from the voters then we could do a lot more
with it, and if we<br>
want something that meets the Condorcet criterion this is my
suggestion.<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
<a href="https://rangevoting.org/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://rangevoting.org/</a><br>
<br>
</p><blockquote type="cite">
<p style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:arial,sans-serif,"arial narrow";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><u></u><big><b>How
score voting works:</b></big><u></u></p>
<ol style="color:rgb(27,27,27);font-family:arial,sans-serif,"arial narrow";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial" type="a">
<li>Each<span> </span><a href="https://rangevoting.org/MeaningOfVote.html" title="What a 'vote' is" style="border:1px none;color:rgb(0,0,0);text-decoration:none;background:rgb(209,154,59) none repeat scroll 0% 0%" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">vote</a><span> </span>consists of a numerical score
within some range (say<span> </span><a href="https://rangevoting.org/Why99.html" title="Other
scores such as 0-10 also are possible and we do not insist
on 0-99. Link explains why 0-99 is a good choice and how
to use other scores." style="border:1px none;color:rgb(95,14,0);text-decoration:none" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">0 to 99</a>) for each
candidate. Simpler is 0 to 9 ("single digit score voting").</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p></p>
<div class="m_-1872951113151025140m_3685997563850768520gmail-m_-2045031879217701627m_-57446879386365185gmail-m_-253417112080945646m_-816986146098263387moz-cite-prefix">On 21/06/2019 5:33 am, Forest Simmons
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Chris, I like it especially the part about naive voters
voting sincerely being at no appreciable disadvantage while
resisting burial and complying with the CD criterion. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From your experience in Australia where full rankings are
required (as I understand it) what do you think about the
practicality of rating on a scale of zero to 99, as compared
with ranking a long list of candidates? Is it a big obstacle?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div id="m_-1872951113151025140m_3685997563850768520gmail-m_-2045031879217701627m_-57446879386365185gmail-m_-253417112080945646m_-816986146098263387DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(211,212,222)">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-4885-b" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"><img src="https://static2.avg.com/2000491/web/i/ipm/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png" alt="" style="width:46px;height:29px" width="46" height="29"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Virus-free. <a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-4885-b" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="#m_-1872951113151025140_m_3685997563850768520_m_-2045031879217701627_m_-57446879386365185_m_-253417112080945646_m_-816986146098263387_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"> </a></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="https://electorama.com/em" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>