[Icehouse] IGDC rankings idea

[Doug Orleans]

Dale Sheldon writes:
 > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
 > 
 > > Suppose the IGDC says 'ten points per choice on the ballot'.  In the 
 > > example above, each voter can share 40 points among the four choices. 
 > > So, the first voter goes with Z=20, I=12, M=6, S=2.  The second voter 
 > > goes with S=12, M=11, I=9, Z=8.
 > 
 > These sorts of methods, if you presume strategic voting, tend toward every 
 > voter giving each entry either the maximum or minimum number of votes, 
 > (i.e. break down as approval voting); and you didn't even list a maximum 
 > other than the number of points, so this will break down to plurality 
 > voting (i.e. each voter gives all points to a single candidate.)

This may be naive, but I think the fact that the votes are public will
help to discourage strategic voting.  A truly exaggerated assignment
of points (or skewed ratings using range voting, i.e. all 10s and 0s)
will stick out like a sore thumb.

--dougorleans at gmail.com