Talk:Cardinal voting systems: Difference between revisions
→(There is never incentive for favorite betrayal by giving a higher score to a candidate who is liked less.), (Furthermore, all cardinal methods satisfy the participation criterion.), and, can Smith//Score or Condorcet//Score be considered cardinal methods?: new section
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 14:
— [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
== (There is never incentive for favorite betrayal by giving a higher score to a candidate who is liked less.), (Furthermore, all cardinal methods satisfy the participation criterion.), and, can Smith//Score or Condorcet//Score be considered cardinal methods? ==
Some of the points made about cardinal methods on this page seem to ignore STAR Voting. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting#Properties Wikipedia] says that STAR fails the participation criterion, and the STAR Voting website has an [https://www.starvoting.us/farewell_to_pass_fail article] mentioning that STAR fails Favorite Betrayal. So maybe a distinction should be made between "classical/pure cardinal" methods, such as Approval and Score, and "semi-cardinal" methods like STAR. I think this rangevoting [https://rangevoting.org/StarVoting.html article] also has examples featuring other criterion failures that don't occur in Approval or Score.
Also, I'd like to ask if [[Smith//Score]] or Condorcet//Score can reasonably be added to this page as cardinal (or semi-cardinal?) methods. Both methods use cardinal information when there is no weak Condorcet winner. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 21:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
| |||