I think research into voting systems like this shouldn't be read as coming from a point of view of "we have the correct objective function we prove that our sys

I think research into voting systems like this shouldn't be read as coming from a point of view of "we have the correct objective function we prove that our system is unequivocably optimal under this objective function". Rather the objective function is a "toy model" which we understand does not capture all of reality, but hopefully captures enough of it to provide some interesting insight. I mean, obviously policies and outcomes at stake in any voting system are subjective, so that's an objection that can be levelled against any objective function, but that includes anything you choose as well. E.g. if you say that your objective function will be to minimize the risk of participants getting dissatisfied enough to violently go out of the system (i.e. revolt / civil war), well, one-person-one-vote can fail like that too; who's to say that that system is really optimal with respect to this objective function?