@lime

I do not understand this part:

Use quadratic voting to pick the best remaining candidate. (Rebrand it as equal-weight voting, by framing it as taking each ballot and dividing by its "weight"—i.e. sum of squares.)

@toby-pereira that's correct. And I believe that if this teaming is honest (the candidates are actually similar and don't want to spoil each other) then it is not the problem. Note that under standard (not spoiler-proof) voting rules, one of the candidates in the cycle could just quit the election, allowing the other candidate to win. We get rid of such strategic considerations here.

On the other hand, dishonest teaming shouldn't happen, since it is only profitable for the candidate who wins, not for the ones who lose nevertheless. Besides, in close battles, the very fact of dishonest teaming can outrage the voters (especially the supporters of the still losing candidate) and affect their preferences enough to change the whole situation.

I've thought of a slightly-simpler variant on MARS: Each candidate's score is equal to their range score, plus the score of the strongest (highest-scored) candidate they majority-beat. Thinking through what properties this would have.

@casimir said in BTR-score:

That's good. You may even remove the "Hiveism substack" in the text and just keep the foot note if this makes it more readable.

Since every voter can vote for only one candidate, votes are a limited resource that candidates compete over. This turns campaigning into a zero-sum game. Candidates with similar political values must compete against each other. They split the votes, which benefits their mutual opponent.

Thank you, your quote helped the article, a plurality votes as a limited resource does explain some of the current rancor.

People diss voting systems that have not yet been used in public elections, even though the two systems with the most current use, plurality and IRV, have been found wanting.

Who knows how the Gibbard theorem applies to ABC voting? In optimizing my vote, how do I take into account the stances of the other voters? Assume I know them perfectly. Do I maybe exaggerate support for a compromise candidate from D to C, with a metered probability?

@jack-waugh I think anything except the minimum for unmarked candidates makes it too easy to mark bullet burials. But I don’t know.