Talk:Ranked voting: Difference between revisions
m
Clarify
No edit summary |
m (Clarify) |
||
Line 116:
::: 2. Beyond that, we don't know what the voters' relative scales are (e.g. if A>B does that mean A: 1000, B: 1, or A: 10, B: 1?), and we have no basis for interpersonal comparison (is my first preference stronger than yours?).
:: There are other variants of ordinal voting that are not majoritarian, and thus discards the first point here. For instance, the Heitzig consensus scheme I've been talking about recently on the EM list is closer to the Rawlsian approach, although it isn't quite the same thing. While the scheme is not majoritarian, I'd still consider the voting done in it ordinal, however. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 09:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
:: Thinking about this a bit more, I suppose all ordinal methods are, in the sense that say Plurality or Borda is, cardinal, because their algorithms use numeric variables. But by that criterion, every deterministic, neutral, anonymous, and resolvable voting method is "cardinal". What the argument above shows is that ordinal methods are not necessarily utilitarian, or approximately utilitarian, unless every system of ethics that can be cast in a utilitarian form is also utilitarian. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 11:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
| |||