Since you asked for comments: This method would be fine, so if it is easier to sell than our other similar proposals, then it would be the one to push.
However, if I understand correctly, the reason for increasing the number of levels is to give less incentive to rate compromise right up there with favorite. This could be accomplished with 3 level CR by assigning values of 10, 9, and 0 to the three levels. Forest On Wed, 22 May 2002, [iso-8859-1] Alex Small wrote: > Donald has voiced repeated objections to methods that fail (among other > criteria) to guarantee the election of the first choice of the majority > (assuming he exists) and allow lower choices to harm preferred candidates. > > Let's go one step further with 3-level approval to satisfy the first > objection and at least give the lower choices less weight: Use Cardinal > Ratings, and stipulate that if a majority gives somebody the highest rating > then he wins (if two such candidates exist then whichever is given the > highest rating by a larger majority, to handle perceived clones). > > Otherwise, elect the candidate with the highest average rating. > > To mitigate incentives for insincerely rating somebody equal to favorite I > recommend using a wide scale, say 0 to 5 or 0 to 10. This way you can (if > you wish) give a lower choice weight very nearly equal to your favorite, > but you can also give him much lower weight if you wish. > > This seems to retain the advantages of 3-level approval, but gives voters > more flexibility. There is a slightly stronger incentive to insincerely > rate somebody equal to favorite, but using a wide scale should > substantially mitigate that. > > Comments? > > Alex > > ---- > For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), > please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em > > ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
