@rob no need to feel sorry about my perceptions. I agree that there is not much point in discussing this further with you, much as there is no purpose in asking a question to which you have already decided the answer. The “basic things” we don’t agree on are not basic at all.

I literally explained that those curves represent the distribution of P values attained by each score from past elections, and I explicitly stated that I was NOT calling anybody an imbecile. I have put more than enough effort into explaining the concept clearly and precisely. It is not my fault that certain people apparently concerned with quantity-based systems have not sufficiently developed their education in mathematics…

Guess who were mathematicians:

Condorcet, Arrow, Dodgson, Borda, Black, Copeland, Kemeny, Smith, and Tideman, all giants in Voting Theory.

If you look on the following list, I don’t think you will find a single person not well versed in probability theory:


What you are complaining about is absurd. Consider this statement:

“A candidate is called (S,P)-consensual if at least a P-fraction of the electorate scored that candidate at least an S.”

How on Earth could that be made any clearer?

What about this?:

“A candidate’s SP-fitness score is given by the expected value of the number of nodes on that candidate’s profile that will poke out of a randomly-generated candidate profile.”

How would you go about describing that with a glass of water?

If you have a simpler way of explaining the system, be my guest! But it’s very rare that a new idea comes neatly packaged up with a bow, and frankly it’s an absurd requirement to expect, let alone to demand, from anyone.

Directly contrary to your claim, I have definitely suggested a very clear alternative system to “majority rules,” which I believe we had discussed in some detail on the previous forum (perhaps not) and that I alluded to. You seemed to comprehend the concept now, but it seems to be that you’ve also painted over it with unwarranted disdain. It’s quite rude to presume that somebody does not have well-defined justification for their claims or beliefs, and when it is not true such as presently, it is also inefficient and counterproductive.

The reason for making the candidates anonymous except for their score distributions is to eliminate bias among the electorate, and for the electorate to select a candidate who gives a good distribution for the whole rather than having only selfish concern for their own vote. It might be even better to have an impartial human arbiter make the decision, who is also elected and has the responsibility of and incentive to choose a candidate based only on their score profiles. I would propose the opposite question: Why leave it up to a mindless mechanical system when it is totally unnecessary?

But I really don’t see this discussion going anywhere, it feels like pulling teeth.