This sounds equivalent to Cumulative voting, unless I misread it.
> Chris Benham wrote: > > Brian, > I found this at your site: > > > Rated Vote, equal sum > > In raw Rated Vote, more opinionated voters get more say. While that > > maximizes the happiness measurement of this simulation, maybe it's > > not fail. So, counterweight all votes such that the sum of positive > > or negative votes cast (absolute value) by a voter is 1.0. > > > > This is weird and unsound. In Cardinal Ratings (aka Range Voting), in > which voters all score the candidates on some scale and > then the scores are simply added-up and the candidate with the highest > total wins, there is no real significance to "positive" versus > "negative" votes. Scoring a candidate on a scale of -1 to 1 is > exactly the same thing as scoring on a scale of 0 to 2, or 7 to 9. > > Chris Benham > > http://www.electionmethods.org/Cardinal.htm > > http://bolson.org/voting/essay.html ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
