3 ms·
That wasn't the point of GP's comment. Of course you only have one round of voting. Their point was, if you have 8 options and you don't really care for most of
by klez 7y ago
That wasn't the point of GP's comment. Of course you only have one round of voting. Their point was, if you have 8 options and you don't really care for most of them (i.e. only the ordering of the first two or three matters to you) than the ordering of the options you don't care for won't carry much significance to the single voters (so they may order them randomly or leave them in the order they are presented), but it can matter in the end results.
(I hope what I mean is clear, if not feel free to push me for clarification)
- tialaramex 7y agoWhat you mean is _clear_ but it's _wrong_ Intentionally or not you've performed a little bit of sleight of hand. At first our voter doesn't care which of "most of them" gets chosen, they've no preference. Then one of these gets picked and "it can matter". But it doesn't matter to the voter we're thinking about at all. The people "it can matter" for thought hard about this option because it mattered to them by definition, and so their sincere preference was incorporated into the decision. By smuggling their preference back in as a concealed preference of other voters who didn't actually care, you inflate their position. If I say I don't care between Pizza and Burgers, and then Burgers win, you don't get to count me as a secret supporter of your "Let's eat these stale Doritos I found" faction just because you feel my support of Burgers ought not to really count.