Dear James! You wrote: > I agree with those who consider "approval" (score of 1 or 0) to be a > kind > of cardinal information.
That's a strange understanding of "cardinality", don't you agree? There is nothing to be counted in a yes-no-question. It's only the question whether I find that candidate OK or not. > I'd like to know what makes you think that > approval information can be sincere (i.e. what is the definition of > sincere approval?) I did not say that I think that approval information can be sincere or that I knew a definition of sincere approval. I certainly know that most of the time I would easily be able to answer the question whether I find the candidate OK or not. I also know that I could almost never give any cardinal rating to a candidate since I don't know what that number is supposed to be meaning. The formal definition of approval is an open problem. You also wrote: > I'll repeat what I wrote in my last message, in the same thread: > My main purpose in using cardinal information is to incorporate > preference strength into defeat strength, and thus to protect defeats that > consist of many strong preferences. > Using other information in addition to ordinal information also has the > potential to allow voters to engage in effective counterstrategy without > altering their rankings, which generally leads to greater stability in > strategy/counterstrategy scenarios. (This second reason is shared by > methods like AERLO/ATLO, S/WPO, etc.) Then I'm sorry to have misrepresented what your main point is. > Oh, wonderful! Are you fully aware of my "approval-weighted pairwise" > method (AWP)? AWP is basically the same thing as CWP, except for the fact > that only two cardinal scores can be given: 1 and 0. I suggest that it has > anti-strategic properties that are comparable to CWP, and that it is > significantly more strategy-resistant than DMC/RAV, AM, margins, and WV. I know, and that is a great pro for AWP. That's also why I essentially proposed something like AWP as "grand compromise" half a year ago. But DFC and DMC are definitely much more simple without having considerably more strategy problems, and that's why I currently prefer DFC to AWP. Yours, Jobst ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info