Talk:Ranked voting: Difference between revisions
→Majority rule as an approximation of utilitarianism
m (Clarify) |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 118:
:: 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)
::: [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] That is well put. I think electowiki needs a page on this topic. A sort of comparison between the majoritarian and utilitarian philosophies which underpin different systems. I tried to give an explanation of a specific point of that [https://forum.electionscience.org/t/utilitarian-vs-majoritarian-in-single-winner/602 here]. Are you interested in giving it a shot. I have always been hesitant because I do not know where to start.
::: On a different topic are there any Rawlsian minmax electoral systems? I tried to use the total number of unspent points as a metric in PR systems to measure quality. ie MAX-sum(score) for each voter is the amount of unspent score. So you want to try to minimize the total amount of unspent score. This is basically what [[Sequentially Spent Score]] does with its reweighting but the selection is pure Utilitarian. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 15:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
| |||