There are costs associated with administering preference polls, running elections, etc. The cost of even looking at the range stuff is time and effort.
And since Range Voting can be done in just one round, always, whereas IRV can take multiple rounds, IRV is "cheaper"/easier. Another great reason to dump the wreck that is IRV for Range Voting.
The range stuff sort of reminds me of that--sort of. One thing I notice is that there appears to be -no- calibration involved, no normalization, and that tends to create garbage for both an analysis and results of analysis..
Some have suggested that we automatically normalize the Range Voting ballots, but there's no hard evidence that actually produces greater social utility efficiency. On the contrary, I have a pretty well founded intuition that people's inherent tendency to convert their honest utilities to range ballots using a sort of logarithmic process (sort of like treating increasing utility with diminishing returns) actually increases social utility efficiency. We could test that by adding some new strategy generators to the utility calculation software, but I'm too lazy, and I want to rewrite the software in D before I further modify it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Missing the point
Date: 2007-01-24 12:48 pm (UTC)And since Range Voting can be done in just one round, always, whereas IRV can take multiple rounds, IRV is "cheaper"/easier. Another great reason to dump the wreck that is IRV for Range Voting.
The range stuff sort of reminds me of that--sort of. One thing I notice is that there appears to be -no- calibration involved, no normalization, and that tends to create garbage for both an analysis and results of analysis..
Some have suggested that we automatically normalize the Range Voting ballots, but there's no hard evidence that actually produces greater social utility efficiency. On the contrary, I have a pretty well founded intuition that people's inherent tendency to convert their honest utilities to range ballots using a sort of logarithmic process (sort of like treating increasing utility with diminishing returns) actually increases social utility efficiency. We could test that by adding some new strategy generators to the utility calculation software, but I'm too lazy, and I want to rewrite the software in D before I further modify it.