Thanks for pointing out the voting system name (Borda count), reading through this page I discovered that this flaw already had a name called the Later-no-help Criterion.
Nothing like writing up and analyzing something that already has been thought about and summarized else-where. But that's sometime how discovery happens.
However these examples I linked above basically infer that people are forced to use all their ranked votes and that all candidates are ranked. If the Borda system does force the person to rank all candidates then doing only ranking 3 of the 5 exasperates the tactical issue whether sought or unsought.
In my mind, the fact that good faith people have problems giving a vote because they don't want to give 3 points to just the one they read and enjoyed, along with the vulnerability and susceptibility to just an ounce of tribal fervor solidifies that perhaps the Borda system is not the best to use for the Ursas.
I will note that we cannot determine majority vote in the Borda system based on the statistics given. that allows variable ranking. Because everyone can vote 1 - 3 times. Could they still have won? That's possible, and I'm not saying that avid pushing and campaigning should be eliminated entierly. I think it'd just be more interesting, and more than likely fairer to an democratic system that is trying to find the best artists (and not, say, politicians) to use the instant run-off method instead of Borda.
The only way we would be able to know the effect on the outcome in these examples would be to run it against the votes that were actually made in the way they were actually made. The publicly available stats do not provide the ability to do this.
hey were probably not condorcet winners - victors of head-to-heads between them and all other candidates - which is one thing this voting system (a form of Borda count) is intended to represent.
The chart in the page you link for Borda count you linked is saying that is not true?
Thanks for pointing out the voting system name (Borda count), reading through this page I discovered that this flaw already had a name called the Later-no-help Criterion.
Another page on "tactical voting" basically spells out this vulnerability in the Borda in a more succinct matter. There is also this more detailed section here.
Nothing like writing up and analyzing something that already has been thought about and summarized else-where. But that's sometime how discovery happens.
However these examples I linked above basically infer that people are forced to use all their ranked votes and that all candidates are ranked. If the Borda system does force the person to rank all candidates then doing only ranking 3 of the 5 exasperates the tactical issue whether sought or unsought.
In my mind, the fact that good faith people have problems giving a vote because they don't want to give 3 points to just the one they read and enjoyed, along with the vulnerability and susceptibility to just an ounce of tribal fervor solidifies that perhaps the Borda system is not the best to use for the Ursas.
I will note that we cannot determine majority vote in the Borda system based on the statistics given. that allows variable ranking. Because everyone can vote 1 - 3 times. Could they still have won? That's possible, and I'm not saying that avid pushing and campaigning should be eliminated entierly. I think it'd just be more interesting, and more than likely fairer to an democratic system that is trying to find the best artists (and not, say, politicians) to use the instant run-off method instead of Borda.
The only way we would be able to know the effect on the outcome in these examples would be to run it against the votes that were actually made in the way they were actually made. The publicly available stats do not provide the ability to do this.
The chart in the page you link for Borda count you linked is saying that is not true?