Dear Forest,
Some replies follow, on the subject of cardinal weighted pairwise (CWP)
and dyadic weighted pairwise (DWP)...
>
>
>If all of the ratings go to the extremes of zero and 100, then the
>ordinal
>information is lost. Otherwise the strategic voter preserves the most
>important ordinal information by squeezing all of the important
>candidates
>into ratings of 0, 1, 99, and 100.
Yes, of course I wouldn't want the ordinal information to be lost. Even
if the "extreme ratings incentive" is amazingly strong (which I strongly
doubt), the A>B>C>D>E>F (100, 99, 98, 2, 1, 0) type ratings that you
describe should work just fine. If you're still not satisfied with this,
then allow non-integer ratings (e.g. 100, 99.99, 99.98, 0.02, 0.01, 0) or
maintain separate ordinal and cardinal ballots. One way or another, the
ordinal information should be easy to preserve.
>
>It may not be a serious problem in most elections, but you might like my
>suggestion anyway once you see it.
I don't understand it yet, but I'm still working on it. I'll read
through
your proposal a couple more times, and then send another note if I still
don't get it.
my best,
James
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
