Approval and score voting are both 100% clone immune and 100% center-squeeze immune. Score voting is literally as good as you can get (at least in VSE terms!) if there’s no strategic voting, and devolves into approval voting under strategic voting. So, if there is some kind of trade-off between center squeeze and clone problems, it must be in the territory of methods that are better than approval voting (even given strategic voters).
I don’t understand the conclusion here. Score and approval don’t exhibit the trade-off. And some other methods do. But what do you mean about it specifically being in the territory of methods that are better than approval that the trade-off exists?
OK, so approval and score don’t exhibit the trade-off, but other methods do. So my question is whether there’s a real trade-off—is this just an artifact of poor voting methods, or is it something that quality voting methods have to deal with?
If the trade-off were only ever exhibited by voting methods what are worse than score voting, then it would in some sense not be a real trade-off.
But another point to recognize is: under honest voting, score voting with high granularity (a big range of possible scores) is literally as good as you can possibly get, at least in VSE terms. So, any advantage over score has to be in dealing with strategic voting (IE incentivizing honest voting, or, making outcomes good even under strategy).
I don’t understand the conclusion here. Score and approval don’t exhibit the trade-off. And some other methods do. But what do you mean about it specifically being in the territory of methods that are better than approval that the trade-off exists?
OK, so approval and score don’t exhibit the trade-off, but other methods do. So my question is whether there’s a real trade-off—is this just an artifact of poor voting methods, or is it something that quality voting methods have to deal with?
If the trade-off were only ever exhibited by voting methods what are worse than score voting, then it would in some sense not be a real trade-off.
But another point to recognize is: under honest voting, score voting with high granularity (a big range of possible scores) is literally as good as you can possibly get, at least in VSE terms. So, any advantage over score has to be in dealing with strategic voting (IE incentivizing honest voting, or, making outcomes good even under strategy).
Ah, gotcha. Thanks!