VSI (or VSI) is just a different way of expressing regret. https://www.rangevoting.org/vsi https://www.rangevoting.org/vsi > It looks like it's a metric constr

VSI (or VSI) is just a different way of expressing regret. https://www.rangevoting.org/vsi https://www.rangevoting.org/vsi > It looks like it's a metric constructed to justify Range-ish voting systems, a la Warren Smith's Bayesian regret models. Bayesian regret wasn't constructed to justify score voting (formerly known as range voting). Smith correctly used a utilitarian social welfare function, and just happened to find that score voting did best. This was by no means a given. Indeed, the VSE calculations (conducted by a different mathematician, Jameson Quinn), used some different assumptions, and had STAR voting, 321 voting, and even certain Condorcet methods, beating score voting in some circumstances. > It degenerates to pretty much the same problem as Plurality voting You have this literally backwards. http://scorevoting.net/BulletBugaboo http://scorevoting.net/BulletBugaboo https://electionscience.org/library/irv-degrades-to-plurality/ https://electionscience.org/library/irv-degrades-to-pluralit... > You just can't model strategy this naively. It was modeled in a very sophisticated way, not "naively". The VSE figures even used all kinds of variations, e.g. asymmetric strategy where one side strategizes more than the other. > And Range/Score voting is even more extreme: you can vote strategically there even knowing nothing about other people's preferences. Just always use extreme values (0 and 100). And even if you do, it still gets better results. > Borda gets a bad rap in these comparisons. It's not a good system, but the likelihood that "strategic voting" will backfire horribly means that in all likelihood, voters would not pursue those strategies. That doesn't make any sense. Strategy, by definition, is a move which has a positive expected value. You seem to be conflating "bad aggregate performance under strategy" with "bad individual performance for a voter who uses strategy", which is deeply wrong.