Talk:Essential Questions

From Electowiki
Revision as of 03:31, 12 June 2005 by Heitzig-j (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

I'd rather replace "must" with "should" on a lot of the questions... James Green-Armytage 06:34, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)

I chose to formulate the questions as "sharp" as possible, e.g. using "must" instead of "should", in order to make them as discriminating as possible. I hoped that the distinction between full (++) and partial (+) agreement suffices to distinguish between a "must" and a "should". User:Jobst Heitzig

I found a number of items confusing:
to make people vote "honestly": Does this mean "permit people to vote honestly," or does it really mean to force honest voting somehow?
to give both majorities and minorities a fair amount of power: What can this mean, other than a Random Ballot component?
Approval information (e.g. cutoffs) should be used: I prefer to get Approval information by using limited ranks, rather than having a cutoff along with a ranking.
Approval information should be interpreted as cardinal rates of, say, 0 or 1: Not sure what the alternative is.
Ranking X and Y equal means X and Y should get the same probability of winning: I get the feeling that this is an effort at describing the WV justification. I'd rather say that "ranking X and Y equal means that neither should get in the way of the other winning."
Freedom of preference expression is more important than anti-strategic properties: What can this mean? What kind of "freedom"? It seems to me that if you can safely express preferences, then this is already an anti-strategic property.
Efficiency is more important than simplicity: Does "efficiency" mean "general goodness"?

Kevin Venzke 20:12, 11 Jun 2005 (PDT)

By "make people vote honestly" I did not mean "force" but rather meant "make it probable that people vote honestly".
A "fair amount of power" need not mean a proportional amount of power as would be introduced by Random Ballot.
Suggesting approval cutoffs was really just an example for approval information, slots could be another, so you could add them as a second example in that statement.
An interpretation of "approved" as "rate 1" would in my view imply that all approved candidates are considered equally good.
The formulation with "ranking X and Y equal" was not an effort at whatever - feel free to add your alternative statement to the list.
As for "freedom of preference expression": It has been stated several times that allowing voters to express, say, cyclic preferences would increase strategic vulnerabilities and should therefore not be allowed.
As for "efficiency", I agree that this term is vage - perhaps we should replace it by "quality of the result" or something along that line.
User:Jobst Heitzig