On 2/20/08, David Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Jeff Zeitlin <icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The system I encountered says "You have x points. Allocate them as you > > see fit among the choices." X is a function of how many choices there > > are on the ballot - the particular example I encountered said "two > > points per choice on the ballot". > > Sounds fine to me, if someone can code the resolution script for it. I > could trivially confirm that no one overspends points when I receive > ballots. > > Maybe all one has to do with this system is add up points, though, eh? > In other words, relative ranking comparison is moot, as the points > allocation makes the ranking an absolute: the sum of allocated points. > > I can dig it... which means there's five math experts on the way to > explain how it's busted. I'll start. This system is even more exploitable because one person giving all their points to one entry (a strategy that I wouldn't fault a designer for taking) is pretty much guaranteed to completely override anyone with a more moderate opinion. While it's true that one person's vote can have a large influence on the order of victory, it isn't obvious to me that that is inherently bad. Isn't the point of voting that each person be heard? Under that theory isn't it a good thing that one person can make a difference? I understand the frustration in being forced to say entry X is better than entry Y without being able to say /how much/ better, but to do this properly and fairly makes the voting system (I believe) unnecessarily complex without adding much of an advantage. In a close contest, the results will be close. That's the nature of the beast. -- - |) () /\/