Talk:Score voting: Difference between revisions
→Normalization and rational voters
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 42:
:::: [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] It seems the problem is not investigated. I am going to push them to do so in their upcoming paper. I did come across this other [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282617314_How_voters_use_grade_scales_in_evaluative_voting paper] which as two important results. The first being that when using a scale with negatives voters tend not to give unknown candidates a negative score as they should. This means [0,x] scales should be used. The second result is that different x values produce consistent scoring. This is good to see. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 18:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::::: [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] Yes, you are right. There are dumb voters who who self weaken their voting power by not putting anybody at the extrema. From data it looks to be around a few percent which is higher than the fraction who give everybody a zero or spoil their ballot. It is more common for voters to put nobody at the MAX than to put nobody at the MIN. One solution is to rescale their ballots as in the first step in [[Baldwin's method]] then tabulate as normal using score. This will likely rarely change results but if it does there could be protests. Seems weird to alter ballots anyway so maybe it is just better to tell people what the consequence of doing this is. Another solution is to limit the options with approval voting or to use Baldwin's method itself. There is however, also a reasonable argument to not solve the issue and let dumb voters hurt themselves. --[[User:Dr. Edmonds|Dr. Edmonds]] ([[User talk:Dr. Edmonds|talk]]) 20:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
:::::: Well, my only suggestion is that cardinal method advocates should not refer to non-normalizing voters as "dumb", even if it is meant to push people to normalize. Probably some good portion of non-normalizing voters would simply be expressing in good faith that their preferences aren't as strong as the other voters', which is more of an altruistic or even "lazy" thing than dumb. I've even heard a game theory type of argument that if you normalize, then you reduce your ability to honestly evaluate the candidates, which in turn makes it harder to incentivize those candidates to better reach out to you. In other words, if you honestly think there is nobody in the field of candidates better than a 2/5 (which could be thought of as an "F" grade), then putting the best of the lot at a 5/5 maximizes your utility gain in that election, but leaves you with no room to increase support for that candidate if they get better later on. I think overall, it may be worth it to have more of a debate or research into what non-normalizing voters are thinking when they score the candidates: maybe there is a dichotomy between those who view it as "giving support for the sake of maximally achieving one's political goals" and those who see it as "grading candidates' quality". [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 21:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
| |||