4 ms·
Inefficient in what way? Surely the small amount of computing power needed to process the ballots and determine the winner is not significant when compared to t
by titanomachy 5y ago
Inefficient in what way? Surely the small amount of computing power needed to process the ballots and determine the winner is not significant when compared to the increased democratic power of the system.
Or do you mean inefficient in the sense of "more effort for voters"? You could always just rank your favorite candidate as 1 and leave the rest blank, which should give you the same amount of voting power you had in a single-vote system.
- blacksmith_tb 5y agoMostly the potential for ties and then run-offs, which obviously can happen with other systems too.
- godelski 5y agoI'd argue that cardinal systems are much more efficient, on two accounts. First, you just need to do reduced sums to determine the winners, whereas ranked systems you have blocks at each round (preventing it from being asynchronous). Second, you have a better embedding space for cardinal systems than ranked. In ranked you're saying that your preference is equidistant. This is not a requirement in cardinal systems (e.g. score or star). Thus you can express that you ''really,, like candidate A over B rather than just A is better than B.