4,211
edits
Talk:STAR voting: Difference between revisions
Marking unsigned comment by User:Closed Limelike Curves
(Marking unsigned comment by User:Closed Limelike Curves) |
|||
Line 1:
{{TalkPageIntro}}
== Improving precinct-summability example ==
{{ping|BetterVotingAdvocacy}} an example of summing from precincts is a great idea, I had someone ask me for one the other day, actually, but I don't think this example is very easy to follow. I'd like to see something like the "star voting: precinct sum" image from https://www.equal.vote/star-vs-irv#simplicity, and with a small set of short, more abstract candidates like https://star.vote/wa17e1cn/ or https://star.vote/x1h3w5fk/
Line 14 ⟶ 15:
This might be intentional, though: with something like a 100-point scale, there would be very little difference between being a strategic voter's 1st choice and their 10th choice in the first round, so the coarser scale makes strategic exaggeration harder.
Intuitively, the half-star feels like a reasonable compromise, but other people might disagree on how to balance these criteria. (Some people would prefer to limit strategic exaggeration even more with approval voting!) -- {{Unsigned|Closed Limelike Curves|date=13:37, 28 January 2024}}
| |||