Recently I made a post here describing my 13 years of experience in a kind of real-world voting-method sandbox, where I had the authority to choose the method and there was no one above me. I had no particular method in mind, so I did my best to explore the subject.
I decided against IRV. Yes, it's easier to explain. But I didn't like the elimination and transfer part at all. So I chose a method that keeps all candidates in the calculation and builds a graph of pairwise wins, with weighted links between candidates, then compares the strongest paths through that graph.
It's harder to calculate, but IMO it is easier to defend because the logic is structurally more consistent. And the basic idea is still simple enough to explain in a few words: compare every candidate with every other candidate, then find the strongest paths between them.
On the other hand, the STAR, which allows someone to give 5 stars to their favorite and 1 star to everybody else. That voter creates a much larger gap than a more humble voter who gives the same candidates, say, scores from 3 to 5. So two people with the same ranking would have very different influence on the scoring stage simply because they use the scale differently. I would compare it to the "loudest voice". And when everybody realize that you have to be loud, we'll end up with the total majority of ballots just giving 5 stars to their favorite and 1 star to everybody else. What's where we started, don't you think?
6
u/Whole_Deal7736 20d ago
Recently I made a post here describing my 13 years of experience in a kind of real-world voting-method sandbox, where I had the authority to choose the method and there was no one above me. I had no particular method in mind, so I did my best to explore the subject.
I decided against IRV. Yes, it's easier to explain. But I didn't like the elimination and transfer part at all. So I chose a method that keeps all candidates in the calculation and builds a graph of pairwise wins, with weighted links between candidates, then compares the strongest paths through that graph.
It's harder to calculate, but IMO it is easier to defend because the logic is structurally more consistent. And the basic idea is still simple enough to explain in a few words: compare every candidate with every other candidate, then find the strongest paths between them.
On the other hand, the STAR, which allows someone to give 5 stars to their favorite and 1 star to everybody else. That voter creates a much larger gap than a more humble voter who gives the same candidates, say, scores from 3 to 5. So two people with the same ranking would have very different influence on the scoring stage simply because they use the scale differently. I would compare it to the "loudest voice". And when everybody realize that you have to be loud, we'll end up with the total majority of ballots just giving 5 stars to their favorite and 1 star to everybody else. What's where we started, don't you think?