4 ms·

There is no such mapping, especially with STAR. So, the critique of scoring based on mapping being variable is fundamentally a misunderstanding. In STAR voting

There is no such mapping, especially with STAR. So, the critique of scoring based on mapping being variable is fundamentally a misunderstanding. In STAR voting, you have up to 5 points to give to each candidate. You effectively get to push each candidate ahead in the race relative to the others by as many as 5 steps forward. There is NOTHING subjective about the meaning of points. They are just points. More points wins. They have no cultural signficance, no opinion, nothing subjective.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> There is no such mapping, especially with STAR. Yes, there's a mapping to a (typically 0-5) numerical rating like those popular in online review systems, which is a motivation for the forced acronym, and exactly the similarity that is viewed as making it particularly intuitive and accessible. Cultural differences in how such rating systems are used for similar preferences have been studied considerably. It's true that you can also view STAR as a limited bucket (and so forced-tie for any but the smallest candidate pool) ranked-ballot method, in which you force voters to arbitrarily select which intercandidate ranking preferences to suppress, and then do a completely wacky (from a ranked preference perspective) method of tallying the ballots.
- quadrangle 8y ago
  It's unfortunate that the branding emphasizes the bad-to-good popular ratings metaphor. I agree that is a problem. It is indeed a form of ranking that allows ties and has a limited resolution. But the limited resolution does help with simplicity. From a UI perspective, presenting a ranked ballot that allows ties is unfortunately complicated. That's what STAR actually could/should be though. And the tallying method is fine, not wacky. In a sense, it's like Borda Count to get to two finalists and then IRV for the finalists. That avoids all the worst aspects of IRV (which are all symptoms of the way its multi-round elimination ignores the preferences of many voters while counting the preferences of others).
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But the limited resolution does help with simplicity. I disagree. Generally, unforced rankings (allowing full expression of preferences with optional ties) are simpler than forced rankings (with no ties) which in turn are simpler than limited bucket arrangements that force ties; “Between X and Y, do you prefer X, Y, or neither?” is the simplest question about voting preferences, and unforced preferences can be answered by answering that question alone; forced rankings may, as the name suggests, force the invention of an artificial preference in some cases, but limited buckets methods force deciding which preferences are most important and which to suppress. And limited buckets methods which apply something more than ordinal meanings to buckets,as STAR does, are most complicated. > From a UI perspective, presenting a ranked ballot that allows ties is unfortunately complicated Tallying unforced preference ballots is complicated, “number your preferences starting with ‘1’ for most preferred, ’2’ for next most, and so on, with equal preferences getting the same number” with a ballot with appropriate entry blanks isn't hard UI either in paper or machines. Even if you want paper optical scan ballots, the main problem is the size of the ballot (which is a logistical problem when you've got multiple simultaneous races) more than the UI. > And the tallying method is fine, not wacky. Viewed as a preference ballot, giving non-ordinal meaning to rankings is wacky, since it is inventing information. The wacky description was in that specific “viewed as” context. > In a sense, it's like Borda Count I don't disagree with this characterization, though I view it as more of a condemnation than a defense. > That avoids all the worst aspects of IRV (which are all symptoms of the way its multi-round elimination ignores the preferences of many voters while counting the preferences of others). If you want to eliminate all the worst aspects of IRV, which you view as all due to ignoring preferences via loser elimination, the simple solution is just to drop loser elimination (giving Bucklin or a form of Majority Judgement, depending on where you use forced preferences or allow ties; classic Majority Judgement even uses limited buckets, though you can use a full unforced preference ballot, so if you really think the preference compression is justified by UI benefits, you can use exactly the same ballot as STAR, with a much more straightforward resolution procedure.) This is certainly far simpler than STAR, whether or not you use the same ballot.
    - quadrangle 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> There is no such mapping, especially with STAR. Yes, there's a mapping to a (typically 0-5) numerical rating like those popular in online review systems, which is a motivation for the forced acronym, and exactly the similarity that is viewed as making it particularly intuitive and accessible. Cultural differences in how such rating systems are used for similar preferences have been studied considerably. It's true that you can also view STAR as a limited bucket (and so forced-tie for any but the smallest candidate pool) ranked-ballot method, in which you force voters to arbitrarily select which intercandidate ranking preferences to suppress, and then do a completely wacky (from a ranked preference perspective) method of tallying the ballots.

quadrangle 8y ago
It's unfortunate that the branding emphasizes the bad-to-good popular ratings metaphor. I agree that is a problem. It is indeed a form of ranking that allows ties and has a limited resolution. But the limited resolution does help with simplicity. From a UI perspective, presenting a ranked ballot that allows ties is unfortunately complicated. That's what STAR actually could/should be though. And the tallying method is fine, not wacky. In a sense, it's like Borda Count to get to two finalists and then IRV for the finalists. That avoids all the worst aspects of IRV (which are all symptoms of the way its multi-round elimination ignores the preferences of many voters while counting the preferences of others).
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > But the limited resolution does help with simplicity. I disagree. Generally, unforced rankings (allowing full expression of preferences with optional ties) are simpler than forced rankings (with no ties) which in turn are simpler than limited bucket arrangements that force ties; “Between X and Y, do you prefer X, Y, or neither?” is the simplest question about voting preferences, and unforced preferences can be answered by answering that question alone; forced rankings may, as the name suggests, force the invention of an artificial preference in some cases, but limited buckets methods force deciding which preferences are most important and which to suppress. And limited buckets methods which apply something more than ordinal meanings to buckets,as STAR does, are most complicated. > From a UI perspective, presenting a ranked ballot that allows ties is unfortunately complicated Tallying unforced preference ballots is complicated, “number your preferences starting with ‘1’ for most preferred, ’2’ for next most, and so on, with equal preferences getting the same number” with a ballot with appropriate entry blanks isn't hard UI either in paper or machines. Even if you want paper optical scan ballots, the main problem is the size of the ballot (which is a logistical problem when you've got multiple simultaneous races) more than the UI. > And the tallying method is fine, not wacky. Viewed as a preference ballot, giving non-ordinal meaning to rankings is wacky, since it is inventing information. The wacky description was in that specific “viewed as” context. > In a sense, it's like Borda Count I don't disagree with this characterization, though I view it as more of a condemnation than a defense. > That avoids all the worst aspects of IRV (which are all symptoms of the way its multi-round elimination ignores the preferences of many voters while counting the preferences of others). If you want to eliminate all the worst aspects of IRV, which you view as all due to ignoring preferences via loser elimination, the simple solution is just to drop loser elimination (giving Bucklin or a form of Majority Judgement, depending on where you use forced preferences or allow ties; classic Majority Judgement even uses limited buckets, though you can use a full unforced preference ballot, so if you really think the preference compression is justified by UI benefits, you can use exactly the same ballot as STAR, with a much more straightforward resolution procedure.) This is certainly far simpler than STAR, whether or not you use the same ballot.
  - quadrangle 8y ago