| > Score voting calls for ambiguous, proven-to-be-culturally-variable ratings that have no natural relationship to preferences utter nonsense. the scores are just normalized utilities. or, if you're being strategic, you're just min-maxing based on expected utility.
https://www.rangevoting.org/RVstrat6 > (and approval does the same thing in an opposite way utter nonsense. approval voting is just a binary 0-1 scale instead of e.g. 0-5. the math in no way changes. > while score voting relies on ambiguous distinctions that don’t have a clear mapping from actual preferences utterly false. there is nothing "ambiguous" whatsoever. > approval forces voters to rank with artificial ties that don’t have a clear mapping to actual preferences of course it has a mapping to actual preferences. what you're _trying_ to say is that the transform from utilities ("preferences") to scores is LOSSY. the problem is that transforming to ordinal rankings is even MORE lossy, and this is why approval voting still outperforms ranked methods in general, especially with strategic voting taken into account. we have several pages explaining this common myth to laypersons. https://medium.com/@clayshentrup/expressiveness-6ef8c034bc65 https://www.rangevoting.org/Expressiveness > the most significant difference within democratic systems in quality of government by popular engagement, popular satisfaction with government, and a number of other measures is with the degree of proportionality of the main legislative body there's absolutely no evidence for this. you're making the "proportional representation fallacy". i address this here. https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-proportional-representat... so virtually everything you just said was incorrect. which is why it's good to study this issue and talk to experts before forming opinions. |