4 ms·
A downside of score voting (aka range voting) is that people are likely to have less influence if they vote honestly. If we image the 2016 election replayed un
by elihu 7y ago
A downside of score voting (aka range voting) is that people are likely to have less influence if they vote honestly.
If we image the 2016 election replayed under range voting, I can easily imagine a lot of Clinton voters rating her 6/10 or whatever, and most of the Trump voters rating him 10/10. Even if you have a lot more voters that prefer Clinton, Trump still wins. An advantage of approval voting in that scenario is that it forces everyone to take an extreme position, yes or no, which is what a strategic voter would do. So, you'd have strategic voters and honest voters voting the same way and having the same amount of influence.
Range voting would be great in a primary, though.
- mjevans 7y agoThose who dilute their approval across potential winning candidates are under-represented relative anyone with an extreme view who would apply a dis-proportionate approval level to their smaller (maybe singular) set of approved candidates. The approval or not of a given candidate might best depend on who supports them _at all_ out of the entire population, over any position in the rankings. That would mathematically simplify to ignoring rank order, considering all rank voting sets as approval tracks, and always eliminating whoever had the least votes until a single winner is left. However that poorly reflects the preference of selecting the most desired winner, which is why other slightly more complicated algorithms were designed.