At 12:24 AM 6/4/2013, Richard Fobes wrote:
While reading the information about score ballots, I wondered what
the range-voting advocate's response is to the belief that a big
preference gap in one ballot will have more influence than a smaller
preference gap in another ballot.
So, Richard wants to know what one believer will say about the belief
of another believer?
What's the belief here?
A big preference gap on one ballot will have more influence than a
small preference gap on *any* ballot. That's not a "belief," that's
Score voting!
Range Voting is Approval Voting with fractional votes allowed, it's
seriously that simple.
Thus the ultimate characteristic is that a larger fractional vote has
more influence than a smaller fractional vote, and, in the extreme,
that a full vote has more influence than no vote. This applies to all
candidate pairs.
For example, suppose one voter votes:
A = 1
B = 2
C = 10
and another voter votes:
A = 1
B = 5
C = 10
and, combined with the other ballots, the winner is C.
Now, suppose the first voter changes hisher ballot to:
A = 1
B = 5
C = 10
and now B wins.
I don't like ranges that don't have a zero. Is that first vote
one-tenth vote *for* A -- in which case it *might* cause a tie for A
-- or is it *no* vote for A?
I'm going to assume that the first vote is actually a zero, not "1."
It makes the matter clearer.
And I apologize for writing "Range" instead of "Score." The name of
"Score voting" was a political decision that not only attempted to
obsolete many usages in notable publications, it also shaded into the
whole set of misconceptions behind "grading" systems, which take us
away from a clear understanding of voting as a process of *choice*,
not of absolute rating.
Above, the voter changed their vote for B from 2/10 vote to 5/10
vote. They increased their vote for B. And this, indeed, could cause B to win.
This implies that the big gap between B and C in the first ballot
has more influence than the smaller gap between B and C in the second ballot.
I.e., a larger fractional vote has more influence than a smaller
fractional vote, just as a full vote has more influence than no vote
(or 0/10 vote).
How do range voting advocates resolve this apparent unfairness?
What unfairness?
*That* is a belief, or, perhaps more accurately, an "occurring."
What is unfair about it?
I'm asking out of curiosity.
("Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought him back.")
2/10 killed B, but 5/10 brought him back.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
