3 ms·

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 t

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
  I think your points are reasonable and thoughtful, thanks for the constructive engagement. You are right in noticing that it's not exclusively an unforced ranking (which I agree is vastly superior to forced rankings!). So, in STAR, there's a different between 3 candidates scored as 5,1,0 versus 5,4,0. They count identically in the runoff stage (which is effectively the rank part of the system). But they count different in the score. I'm not convinced that difference is necessary, valuable, or intuitive to people, but I'm not convinced it isn't. I think these things need more real-world case studies. I definitely think the distinction isn't fatal or anything. I see how it could have a positive impact on outcomes. I don't agree that multi-round eliminations are simpler than STAR per se. I'm certainly inclined to see 3-2-1 voting as a competitor with STAR for best overall system.

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
I think your points are reasonable and thoughtful, thanks for the constructive engagement. You are right in noticing that it's not exclusively an unforced ranking (which I agree is vastly superior to forced rankings!). So, in STAR, there's a different between 3 candidates scored as 5,1,0 versus 5,4,0. They count identically in the runoff stage (which is effectively the rank part of the system). But they count different in the score. I'm not convinced that difference is necessary, valuable, or intuitive to people, but I'm not convinced it isn't. I think these things need more real-world case studies. I definitely think the distinction isn't fatal or anything. I see how it could have a positive impact on outcomes. I don't agree that multi-round eliminations are simpler than STAR per se. I'm certainly inclined to see 3-2-1 voting as a competitor with STAR for best overall system.