Talk:Score voting: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

=== move to "range voting" ===

== move to "range voting" ==

Hi there. I hope that I won't offend anyone by this move. I just don't think that it makes any sense to call this method "cardinal ratings". My main reason is that "cardinal ratings" describes a ballot type rather than a tally method. A secondary reason is that the term "cardinal ratings" is somewhat redundant in itself.

Line 11:

[[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 04:39, 19 May 2005 (PDT)

I don't object. This is under "range voting" on wikipedia as well. I suppose "CR" was popularized by Mike Ossipoff. I'm curious to know who coined "range voting," though. I first remember seeing it in Warren Smith's paper (which was very opinionated and contained a number of errors). [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 11:38, 20 May 2005 (PDT)

:I don't object. This is under "range voting" on wikipedia as well. I suppose "CR" was popularized by Mike Ossipoff. I'm curious to know who coined "range voting," though. I first remember seeing it in Warren Smith's paper (which was very opinionated and contained a number of errors). [[User:KVenzke|Kevin Venzke]] 11:38, 20 May 2005 (PDT)

Good question; I don't know. Maybe a good topic to bring up on the list. I was under the impression that it had a fairly well-established usage, but I could be wrong. Annoyingly, most of the google hits I get are clones of the wikipedia article (with this one at the top), and none of them seem to cite a seminal paper. Even if "range voting" doesn't have a good usage history, it's still probably better than the redundant "cardinal ratings", but perhaps "ratings summation" would be more descriptive?

::Good question; I don't know. Maybe a good topic to bring up on the list. I was under the impression that it had a fairly well-established usage, but I could be wrong. Annoyingly, most of the google hits I get are clones of the wikipedia article (with this one at the top), and none of them seem to cite a seminal paper. Even if "range voting" doesn't have a good usage history, it's still probably better than the redundant "cardinal ratings", but perhaps "ratings summation" would be more descriptive? -- [[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 10:12, 21 May 2005 (PDT)

[[User:James Green-Armytage|James Green-Armytage]] 10:12, 21 May 2005 (PDT)

== Condorcet Criterion violation ==

⚫

~~Comment on the Condorcet Criterion violation example.~~ If 51 voters vote A100>B90 vs. 49 voters with B100>A0, then isn't it possible that B-preference voters have an incentive under Range Voting to bullet vote for B instead of rating A truthfully? In that case, Condorcet correctly avoids giving that incentive.

:''Comment on the Condorcet Criterion violation example made 2008-08-05; reformatted by [[User:RobLa]] on 2020-05-04''

⚫

If 51 voters vote A100>B90 vs. 49 voters with B100>A0, then isn't it possible that B-preference voters have an incentive under Range Voting to bullet vote for B instead of rating A truthfully? In that case, Condorcet correctly avoids giving that incentive.

--[[User:Araucaria|Araucaria]] 17:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)