3 ms·

Excellent critique of ratings based system. I think this is the biggest problem with multi-point (more than 3 values for score) STAR voting. What constitutes "5

by kortex 5y ago

Excellent critique of ratings based system. I think this is the biggest problem with multi-point (more than 3 values for score) STAR voting. What constitutes "5 star"? What about 0/blank vs 1 star? Framing is important, and I think STAR would be most optimal with good ol' Likert scale (five or seven point) rather than 0-N stars. But I think even simpler is the "3-point Likert" behavior of V321: approve, disapprove, and "meh, ok." I don't like how IRV forces me to rank candidates I may know little to nothing about (e.g. downballot randos not on "my team"). I don't really care if Kick Puppies Party is above or below Trip Grandparents Party.

jlokier 5y ago
That's why I favour ranked systems that allow you to place multiple candidates at equal rank if you wish, and to leave off ones you really don't like.
- obelos 5y ago
  Isn't that just a score/range system, then?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    A score or range system has more possible values than candidates and treats ballots with different numbers but the same ordering differently; its not the same as an unforced preference ranked ballot (a ranked preference ballot that allows ties).
notahacker 5y ago
You're entitled to leave both the Kick Puppies and Trip Grandparents party off your ranking! V321 is certainly more intuitive in the ratings (it's basically an upvote/downvote system) if not the counting, but it's still quite strategic. On the plus side, the most basic strategy of simply upvoting who you want to win and downvoting the candidates you hate ensures the most divisive candidates are removed from the pool and the obscure fringe candidates are unlikely to benefit, but there's a fair bit of juggling how many candidates to upvote or downvote depending on what you think of the candidates seen as most likely to win the final round
zajio1am 5y ago
> I don't like how IRV forces me to rank candidates I may know little to nothing about That is an implementation issue. IRV can be implemented as either requiring complete ordering or allow partial ordering (you have n candidates, you can assign each one level 1..n, but you may use the same level for more candidates to describe partial ordering).
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > IRV can be implemented as either requiring complete ordering or allow partial ordering (you have n candidates, you can assign each one level 1..n, but you may use the same level for more candidates to describe partial ordering). Technically, that’s a complete ordering with unforced preferences, not a partial ordering. A ballot with a partial ordering would be won for which for some pair of candidates A, B, none of A> B, A<B, nor A=B would be true. Equal preference and absence of preference are different. A ballot that worked this way would be a meaningful extension in existing ranked preference methods that aggregate pairwise preferences from individual ballots, lile ranked pairs. (Whether the effect would be desirable is not something I’ve really analyzed, but that kind of method would naturally make distinct use of the information.)
  - zajio1am 5y ago
    > that’s a complete ordering with unforced preferences, not a partial ordering. Yes, it is weak ordering, not partial ordering. > Equal preference and absence of preference are different. Well, it may be understood as absence of preference, provided the absence of preference is transitive.

by kortex 5y ago

jlokier 5y ago

That's why I favour ranked systems that allow you to place multiple candidates at equal rank if you wish, and to leave off ones you really don't like.

obelos 5y ago
Isn't that just a score/range system, then?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  A score or range system has more possible values than candidates and treats ballots with different numbers but the same ordering differently; its not the same as an unforced preference ranked ballot (a ranked preference ballot that allows ties).

notahacker 5y ago

You're entitled to leave both the Kick Puppies and Trip Grandparents party off your ranking! V321 is certainly more intuitive in the ratings (it's basically an upvote/downvote system) if not the counting, but it's still quite strategic. On the plus side, the most basic strategy of simply upvoting who you want to win and downvoting the candidates you hate ensures the most divisive candidates are removed from the pool and the obscure fringe candidates are unlikely to benefit, but there's a fair bit of juggling how many candidates to upvote or downvote depending on what you think of the candidates seen as most likely to win the final round

zajio1am 5y ago

> I don't like how IRV forces me to rank candidates I may know little to nothing about That is an implementation issue. IRV can be implemented as either requiring complete ordering or allow partial ordering (you have n candidates, you can assign each one level 1..n, but you may use the same level for more candidates to describe partial ordering).

dragonwriter 5y ago
> IRV can be implemented as either requiring complete ordering or allow partial ordering (you have n candidates, you can assign each one level 1..n, but you may use the same level for more candidates to describe partial ordering). Technically, that’s a complete ordering with unforced preferences, not a partial ordering. A ballot with a partial ordering would be won for which for some pair of candidates A, B, none of A> B, A<B, nor A=B would be true. Equal preference and absence of preference are different. A ballot that worked this way would be a meaningful extension in existing ranked preference methods that aggregate pairwise preferences from individual ballots, lile ranked pairs. (Whether the effect would be desirable is not something I’ve really analyzed, but that kind of method would naturally make distinct use of the information.)
- zajio1am 5y ago
  > that’s a complete ordering with unforced preferences, not a partial ordering. Yes, it is weak ordering, not partial ordering. > Equal preference and absence of preference are different. Well, it may be understood as absence of preference, provided the absence of preference is transitive.