At 01:11 AM 3/14/2007, Kevin Venzke wrote: >But is this all about changing what we mean by the terms "strategic" >and "insincere"? Is that the point?
As the terms apply to Range and Approval, yes. The usage came from use with ranked systems, where the behavior of the system and implications for voters was different. > > Yes. I think that if you vote Approval style, you are dividing the > > candidates into two groups, and you are willing to support one group, > > fully, and not the other. It is true that this might not reflect much > > care, it might be simple disinterest, insufficient to go to the > > effort of rating candidates intermediately. > >Am I supposed to put extra effort into something just because I can? No. You do it if it serves you, and not otherwise. And we assume that if everyone behaves like this, the votes will generate a useful result. "Serves you" could include serving others, i.e., voters considering what they think others would be pleased with, if this matters to them. But in a "fully sincere" Range poll, I'd want voters to vote their personal preferences, and not consider the needs of compromise, but, quite for this reason, I dislike Range polls that automatically determine outcomes. They are far more useful as input to a deliberative process, or at least another poll for actual implementation (which might not be Range, it might be Condorcet compliant or at least majoritarian). ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info