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).
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!