[ClayShentrup]

score voting is extremely good.

https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig

compressing it to approval voting doesn't hurt very much and makes the ballot extremely simple.

> I don't see how.

i just showed you how. better average voter satisfaction, better resistance to strategy, etc.

https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig

not to mention radically simpler:

https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/

https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/approval-votin...

IRV is a strategic mess that maintains a two party system.

wonk.blog/duopoly

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/later-no-harm-72c44e145510

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/star-voting-is-simpler-than-...

[Dylan16807]

> i just showed you how.

That comes across as weirdly aggressive when you're referring to earlier in the same post. Like I'm dumb for not somehow seeing that before I finished my own post.

Also what's the definition of honesty for approval voting? Where am I supposed to draw the line?

The chart is pretty but I'm not trusting that chart without a lot more info.

> IRV is a strategic mess

I didn't say I want instant runoff in particular.

[ClayShentrup]

it doesn't really matter how you define "honest". what matters is how people actually vote. the only really crucial distinction for "honest" versus "strategic" is that "honest" can't consider viability. in the simulations, we just use "approve everyone you like more than average". optimal strategy is to approve everyone you like more than the expected utility of the winner. https://rangevoting.net/RVstrat6

here's lots of detail. you can run the code for yourself. https://www.rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html

here's a slightly different model from the late harvard stats phd, jameson quinn. https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/

don't "trust" anything. look at the data. you could also read the book "gaming the vote" by william poundstone.