5 ms·
Needs to add the new best-compromise best-of-both-worlds proposal: SCORE RUNOFF per http://www.equal.vote/ http://www.equal.vote/ That's most of the benefits
by quadrangle 10y ago
Needs to add the new best-compromise best-of-both-worlds proposal: SCORE RUNOFF per http://www.equal.vote/ http://www.equal.vote/
That's most of the benefits of score voting (which is acknowledged as superior in the study here) with a runoff stage to address strategic voting.
- dragonwriter 10y ago"Score voting" is very bad for public elections in a way most analyses ignore; and that is that u like some ordered ranking, numerical scores have no clearly articulable, unambiguous meaning and their assignment is demonstrably variable even with similar actual preferences (notably, it has a strong cultural component.) Approval has a somewhat similar problem. Both are, for related reasons, problematic for simulations like this, as well: while these simulations already tend to assume all axes have equal weighting for all voters (though it's easy enough to vary that, but graphical depictions get harder) which is something of a distorting simplification, you have to also assume a mapping function from preference distance to score to make score voting work in a simulation (or a distance cutoff for approval), either of which is a much bigger distortion of how those things work in the real world.
- zeveb 10y agoWhat's wrong with happy face, neutral face, frowny face?
- quadrangle 10y agoThe meaning of a score is relative to the candidate pool in actual practice. This is not an issue in score runoff at all. 0 means "as bad as any candidate in this pool gets" and 9 means "as great as any candidate in the pool gets". There's NO need AT ALL for there to be some broader meaning.