4 ms·

Was going to say exactly this. STAR is basically approval with the added metric of approval amount, which I personally think is important, and has the benefit

Was going to say exactly this. STAR is basically approval with the added metric of approval amount, which I personally think is important, and has the benefit of being similar to something people already understand (star ratings for products/services).

didibus 7y ago
I feel logically the amount would just be embedded in people's vote of approval. Since score is the average anyways. Most people would probably approve of all 3+ amount, and won't approve of who they would have scored 3 or less. It gets weird making the 0s and 5s, and the 1s and 4s fight I feel. Since those are just ultra polarized candidates. It depends what we want to optimize for, but I think most people would agree that we want to avoid having a very large number of absolutely discontent voters. So I think a system which either makes the least hated candidate win (even if no ones favorite), or makes an overwhelming favorite win, is what we'd want. That way we minimize the number of people who are absolutely disgruntled.
- kaibee 7y ago
  > It depends what we want to optimize for, but I think most people would agree that we want to avoid having a very large number of absolutely discontent voters. So I think a system which either makes the least hated candidate win (even if no ones favorite), or makes an overwhelming favorite win, is what we'd want. That way we minimize the number of people who are absolutely disgruntled. If the least hated candidate wins, I worry that they would lack the mandate to get anything done. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
  - didibus 7y ago
    I'm not sure why that would be the case. Why would they face any more opposition than any other candidate being elected would to put in place their electoral promesses? In fact, I'd expect less opposition, since more people approved of their proposed platform.

didibus 7y ago

I feel logically the amount would just be embedded in people's vote of approval. Since score is the average anyways. Most people would probably approve of all 3+ amount, and won't approve of who they would have scored 3 or less. It gets weird making the 0s and 5s, and the 1s and 4s fight I feel. Since those are just ultra polarized candidates. It depends what we want to optimize for, but I think most people would agree that we want to avoid having a very large number of absolutely discontent voters. So I think a system which either makes the least hated candidate win (even if no ones favorite), or makes an overwhelming favorite win, is what we'd want. That way we minimize the number of people who are absolutely disgruntled.

kaibee 7y ago
> It depends what we want to optimize for, but I think most people would agree that we want to avoid having a very large number of absolutely discontent voters. So I think a system which either makes the least hated candidate win (even if no ones favorite), or makes an overwhelming favorite win, is what we'd want. That way we minimize the number of people who are absolutely disgruntled. If the least hated candidate wins, I worry that they would lack the mandate to get anything done. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
- didibus 7y ago
  I'm not sure why that would be the case. Why would they face any more opposition than any other candidate being elected would to put in place their electoral promesses? In fact, I'd expect less opposition, since more people approved of their proposed platform.