<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">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. <br>
CJC<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/08/2023 14:31, Colin Champion
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a8738a52-f638-4edd-6ce1-1457d286a4ec@routemaster.app">On
24/08/2023 14:02, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
<br>
> My intuitive response is to do some type of open Approval
primary.
<br>
> The incommensurability and chicken dilemma problems hit a lot
less
<br>
> when there are 5 candidates to spread the error over.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
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.
<br>
CJC
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 2023-08-24 14:29, Colin Champion wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Of course, the naive STAR approach is not cloneproof, which is a
bit of a bummer.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
Or perhaps there exists a better method :-)
<br>
<br>
-km
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
----
<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for
list info
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>