Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting

Antoinette Baujard, Herrade Igersheim and Isabelle Lebon

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Many voters seem to appreciate the greater freedom of expression afforded by alternative voting rules; in evaluative voting, for example, longer grading scales and/or negative grades seem desirable in so far as, all other things being equal, they allow greater expressivity. The paper studies to what extent the behavior of voters, and the outcomes of elections, are sensitive to the grading scale employed in evaluative (or "range") voting. To this end, we use voting data from an experiment conducted in parallel with the 2017 French presidential election,which aimed to scrutinize the negative grade effect and the length effect in grading scales. First, this paper confirms that the introduction of a negative grade disfavors "polarizing" candidates, those whose political discourse provokes divisive debate, but more generally we establish that it disfavors major candidates and favors minor candidates. Second, under non-negative scales, polarizing candidates may be relatively disfavored by longer scales, especially compared with candidates who attract only infrequent media coverage and who are little known among voters. Third, longer scales assign different weights to the votes of otherwise equal voters, depending on their propensity to vote strategically. Overall, we observe that the benefits of the expressivity provided by longer scales or negative grades need to be balanced against the controversial advantage these give to minor candidates, and their tendency to undermine the principle that each vote should count equally in the outcome of the election.

Keywords: Evaluative Voting; Approval Voting; In Situ Experiment; Voting Scale Design; Behavioral Bias (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021-05
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cdm and nep-pol
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03095898v2
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Published in Social Choice and Welfare, 2021, 56 (4), pp.803-834. ⟨10.1007/s00355-020-01300-z⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://hal.science/hal-03095898v2/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting (2021)
Working Paper: Some regrettable grading scale effects under different versions of evaluative voting (2020)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03095898

DOI: 10.1007/s00355-020-01300-z

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().