Talk:Method evaluation poll 2005

Condorcet//Approval with FBC patch

I put Condorcet//Approval with FBC patch under "ranked" methods rather than "cutoff" methods since I don't advise that one be allowed to rank among disapproved candidates in this method. That way, there is no burial incentive. Kevin Venzke

Good to know. James Green-Armytage 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Rating methods

Also, I was a bit lazy in giving all the CR methods a 4. I think CR is a pointless complication. Kevin Venzke 17:22, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Yes, I noticed that; it was the only way I could understand your giving approval weighted pairwise a higher score than cardinal weighted pairwise, when AWP is just a limited version of CWP. I don't know if salability is part of your issue with CR, but remember that this poll deals with functional merit rather than salability. Actually, I think that it is more intuitive and easy for most voters to rate candidates on a 0-100 scale than to rank them with an approval cutoff. I suspect that many voters wouldn't understand the approval cutoff, and hence wouldn't use it. Just my opinion. James Green-Armytage 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)

I am not considering salability, unless in that you include considerations of whether voters will be able to sensibly use the method. I think approval cutoffs and 0-100 rating are both likely to disappoint in this respect. I consider 0-100 even worse unless it's shown that the optimal strategy is not necessarily approval strategy. Kevin Venzke 15:49, 16 Jun 2005 (PDT)

Can you demonstrate that approval strategy is always the optimal strategy in [cardinal pairwise http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm]?