This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The contents of the Ratings ballot page were merged into Rated voting on 12 August 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
"Others, however, argue that this is not true, for instance because interpersonal comparisons of cardinal measures are impossible."
1. What does this have to do with Arrow's impossibility theorem not applying to range ballots?
2. Anyway, it's preferential ballots that are not interpersonally comparable, because they destroy information about distance. All these ballots:
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
are compressed into an equally spaced ballot of A > B > C > D.
"In any case, cardinal systems do fall under the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, and therefore any such system must be subject to strategic voting in some instances."
I've heard that the theorem only applies to ranked systems, but also that it doesn't matter because range systems can be re-interpreted as ranked systems and fail the theorem. Which is correct? 71.167.61.127 ( talk) 17:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It does seem that a Ratings ballot and Cardinal voting have such a similar scope that they are best described on the same page. Klbrain ( talk) 22:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what this paragraph means, so I'm moving it to talk page:
Other variants include disapproval voting options such as negative assignment, but typically out of the same absolute number of votes. That is, a -2 and a +8 add up to ten points, not six, because the absolute value of a negative vote is the same as positive.
It was added by an IP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cardinal_voting&diff=prev&oldid=633428976&diffmode=source
I'm not sure why Cumulative voting isn't mentioned in this article. A sentence in the Cumulative voting article says "Unlike choice voting where the numbers represent the order of a voter's ranking of candidates (i.e. they are ordinal numbers), in cumulative votes the numbers represent quantities (i.e. they are cardinal numbers)"... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 00:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I would consider cumulative voting to be in its own class, not cardinal. — Omegatron ( talk) 19:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a single voting system that is not subject to strategic voting in some instances? What purpose does this sentence serve? Primecut ( talk) 03:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I can trivially convert rankings to ratings. 1. Candidate A, 2. Candidate B, 3. Candidate C --> Candidate A: 3, Candidate B: 2, Candidate C: 1. Boom, I did it. Unsourced and clearly false statement btfo 69.113.166.178 ( talk) 22:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not too sure if "Rated Voting" is a better page title than "Cardinal Voting". Rated Voting as a name does not really seem to be used in the literature. Jannikp97 ( talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if the sub-articles or sub-sub-articles have some examples of real-world political (national, local, supranational) systems where rated voting systems are used, it would be good to have a few of these listed in this article. This article looks currently like it only presents mathematical/statistical arguments of systems that should be used, but have not (yet?) been used.
If these systems are in use, it would be good to mention a few of these in this article, with WP:RS, of course. Boud ( talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Ranked voting#Adoption is a nice 'Adoption' section. Boud ( talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
The contents of the Ratings ballot page were merged into Rated voting on 12 August 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
"Others, however, argue that this is not true, for instance because interpersonal comparisons of cardinal measures are impossible."
1. What does this have to do with Arrow's impossibility theorem not applying to range ballots?
2. Anyway, it's preferential ballots that are not interpersonally comparable, because they destroy information about distance. All these ballots:
A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
are compressed into an equally spaced ballot of A > B > C > D.
"In any case, cardinal systems do fall under the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, and therefore any such system must be subject to strategic voting in some instances."
I've heard that the theorem only applies to ranked systems, but also that it doesn't matter because range systems can be re-interpreted as ranked systems and fail the theorem. Which is correct? 71.167.61.127 ( talk) 17:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It does seem that a Ratings ballot and Cardinal voting have such a similar scope that they are best described on the same page. Klbrain ( talk) 22:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what this paragraph means, so I'm moving it to talk page:
Other variants include disapproval voting options such as negative assignment, but typically out of the same absolute number of votes. That is, a -2 and a +8 add up to ten points, not six, because the absolute value of a negative vote is the same as positive.
It was added by an IP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cardinal_voting&diff=prev&oldid=633428976&diffmode=source
I'm not sure why Cumulative voting isn't mentioned in this article. A sentence in the Cumulative voting article says "Unlike choice voting where the numbers represent the order of a voter's ranking of candidates (i.e. they are ordinal numbers), in cumulative votes the numbers represent quantities (i.e. they are cardinal numbers)"... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 00:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I would consider cumulative voting to be in its own class, not cardinal. — Omegatron ( talk) 19:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a single voting system that is not subject to strategic voting in some instances? What purpose does this sentence serve? Primecut ( talk) 03:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I can trivially convert rankings to ratings. 1. Candidate A, 2. Candidate B, 3. Candidate C --> Candidate A: 3, Candidate B: 2, Candidate C: 1. Boom, I did it. Unsourced and clearly false statement btfo 69.113.166.178 ( talk) 22:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not too sure if "Rated Voting" is a better page title than "Cardinal Voting". Rated Voting as a name does not really seem to be used in the literature. Jannikp97 ( talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if the sub-articles or sub-sub-articles have some examples of real-world political (national, local, supranational) systems where rated voting systems are used, it would be good to have a few of these listed in this article. This article looks currently like it only presents mathematical/statistical arguments of systems that should be used, but have not (yet?) been used.
If these systems are in use, it would be good to mention a few of these in this article, with WP:RS, of course. Boud ( talk) 11:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Ranked voting#Adoption is a nice 'Adoption' section. Boud ( talk) 11:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)