2 ms·
> Even Arrow himself said that cardinal voting (Approval, score, STAR) is probably the likely answer. Unfortunately, as I understand it, it turns out the probl
by mehrdadn 6y ago
> Even Arrow himself said that cardinal voting (Approval, score, STAR) is probably the likely answer.
Unfortunately, as I understand it, it turns out the problem is basically unsolvable: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/14245
- godelski 6y agoVoting itself, yes. Which is why Arrow (who is being referenced in that post) is hedging. But just because there is no global maxima doesn't mean there aren't better solutions than others. It depends on the criteria that you're looking for. While Cardinal systems don't maximize VSE like Schulze or RP do (which also don't get 100%!) they much better counter strategic voting as well as are dead simple. If you read a few of the links I posted or watch a few of the videos they explain some of these concepts. But yes, voting math (social choice theory) is hard. No one is going to combat you on that.
- ClayShentrup 6y agoCardinal systems generally do BETTER than Schulze or ranked pairs. Especially STAR voting. http://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/vse.html http://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/vse.html
- godelski 6y agoHey, it's that guy from the video I sourced! And yes, but people tend to pay attention to only the maximal value. Just trying not to complicate things.