Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Conaill" data-source="post: 1737488" data-attributes="member: 1264">Not entirely true. Narrowing the range of scores will help somewhat. At the extreme, you could narrow it down to a 1-2 score, which would be equivalent to approval voting (assuming you score all the choices). But you're right that narrowing the range from 1-10 to 1-5 doesn't really change the fundamental problem.Scoring is a good idea if what you want as an end result is an actual *score* for all the candidates, like on the reviews page or on imdb.com. But if all you want is to designate a single *winner* (plus a second place in our case), allowing the voters to assign scores to all candidates  grants the voters WAY too much flexibility - flexibility they can then use to manipulate the system!There's always a tradeoff between in how much detail you allow the voter to express his opinion, and how easy it is to exploit the voting system. If everyone were to vote completely honestly, this would not be a problem, and we could allow them a 1-100 score for all I care. But unfortunately we can't make that assumption.The classical one-person-one-vote gives the voter the absolute *minimum* amount of choice, which makes it hard to abuse, but also means the outcome may be a poor fit to what the voters actually want. A scoring method as is now used by the Ennies gives the voters the *maximum* amount of choice, meaning that if everone votes honestly the outcome should most closely match the voters desires, but making it way too easy to manipulate.</blockquote>

Verification