This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"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."
Well obviously strategic voting would be an issue in cardinal voting systems, whether or not we say the GS theorem applies. If a candidate is your least favorite among the realistic candidates, you will always decrease the chance that he is elected by giving him the lowest possible rating and that would be the strategic thing to do, even if you actually think he would be okay. MathHisSci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion
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)Reply
@AnonMoos I would very much like to resolve this fundamental conflict of terms. My understanding of social choice theory, game theory and mathematics is amateur, and my short literature search didn't bring up any conclusive source: I need help! I just signed up to the electorama election-methods mailing list to ask there, but my application is still pending.
As you said, this article claims cardinal voting "allows the voter to give each candidate an independent evaluation". This definition excludes cumulative voting, and by extension quadratic voting, which provide each voter with a balance of points they can allocate between the options as they please.
However, cumulative voting claims to be "a multiple-winner cardinal voting method", on the basis that "in cumulative votes the numbers represent quantities (i.e. they are cardinal numbers)." Further, quadratic voting claims to be "a variant of cumulative voting in the class of cardinal voting."
Based on what I understand of cardinality and cardinal numbers, I tend to believe that this article is in error, and that the definition should read something like "Cardinal voting refers to any voting method where the votes are cardinal numbers indicating definite quantities (e.g. 1, 7, 0, -1)."
Seems like editors ended in the right place. Cumulative voting for sure is not a cardinal voting method, as there are set number of votes and for that reason the voter cannot independent evaluate each candidates RRichie (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Tomruen I did a moderate literature review, and could find no definition of cardinal voting that clearly includes cumulative voting. Until a referenced source to the contrary is found, I agree with you that cumulative voting and quadratic voting should not make the claim to be cardinal, since that would be original research. I would make those changes in some days, unless you/someone else gets there first.
If cumulative voting is neither ordinal nor cardinal though, where does it lie? Is it itself a third class? A question perhaps better on the respective page at a later point. DougInAMugtalk22:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Cumulative voting fits as a "single vote" system. Ranked ballots or not is kind of irrelevant. Single transferable vote can be seen as an optimized cumulative voting where a single fractional vote is distributed among 1 or more candidates to maximize how many winners it helps influence. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Tomruen Thanks for those points. This '3rd category', "single vote methods" doesn't seem to be recognised anywhere. I feel like 'currency' or 'point' most accurately describes the difference from 'ranking' and 'scoring' methods. In any case, without a reliable source for categorization, cumulative and 'single vote' methods should remain independent. DougInAMugtalk15:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is there a single voting system that is notsubject to strategic voting in some instances? What purpose does this sentence serve? Primecut (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
"The opposite is not true: Rankings cannot be converted to ratings, since ratings carry more information about strength of preference, which is destroyed when converting to rankings. "
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
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)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.