From: Anthony Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>--- Stephane Rouillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> any system that would leave a default value for unvalued/unranked/unapproved >> candidates would help. Personnaly, I would suggest: >> A) Let the voter precise the score, rank or state of all unexpressed >> preferences; >> B) I favor preference-style ballots over simple approbational ballots; >> C) I favor ranking systems over scoring sytems. >> >> The reason behid B) is that I think preferences help to get a more sincere >> result >> because the added details are worth more than the strategical opportunities >> in my humble opinion. I wrote C) for the same reason. > >I don't see the logic of the last sentence. A scoring system should include >more >details than a ranking system. A scoring system can have an arbitrary level of >precision, and can be reduced to a rank ballot. It all comes down to how it is counted. If I rank candidates A>B>C and use range A: 100 B: 10 C: 1 I have the same ranking for both. However, the first vote carries more weight when comparing B and C for the ranked choice. This means that something like renormalisation has to happen when using range votes. This is very labour intensive and would mean a computer is required. What range would be good at is when trying to decide if 2 candidates are better than 1. For example, if the voting system was electing more than 1 candidate, the range vote would show the voter would prefer A to be elected instead of B and C being elected. This might be helpful in some kind of declared preference voting system. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
