3 ms·
> Consider the case where you like two candidates equally This is an exceptionally improbable case though. Between two choices there's always one that's better
by eps 6y ago
> Consider the case where you like two candidates equally
This is an exceptionally improbable case though. Between two choices there's always one that's better. Unlike when you need to select the worst, when all options may be equally bad.
- jabl 6y agoWith an ordinal voting method if you vote A > B > C you're stating that the difference between A and B is the same as the difference between B and C. Which is a poor match to reality.
- eps 6y agoStill way closer to the reality than A = B = C that you get with the approval voting.
- godelski 6y agoYou could just approve A, or A & B. People will set different criteria. The reason equality is a feature is because you can't be infinitely expressive. Let's say that we're using a 5 point scale. If A is 4.9 and B is 4.8 and C is 2, some voters will express both A and B as 5 while some will split. They will do this because they are strategizing (one thing STAR handles well). But the key here, like said before, is that you can express how much more you like A and B over C. This can have major results on the election (also, this ability makes practicality simpler. Less prone to errors because you are scoring candidates and not ranking. So you can have an infinite number of candidates with no added complexity. You can make "mistakes" like scoring or "ranking" the candidates the same value. There are a lot of advantages to the reduced complexity. And you're not making any trades in features, only upgrades).