> From: Juho Laatu > > On 12.6.2011, at 2.17, [email protected] wrote: > > > Another solution is to infer the rankings from range style > ballots. (As a retired teacher I find iot easier to > > rate than to rank, anyway.) > > Maybe the default ballot formats should also have names or > something. A rating based ballot could be such that there is a > row for each candidate name, and then there are columns from "9" > to "0", and then the voter ticks some marks in the ballot. A > ranking based ballot could be such that there is a row for each > candidate name, and then there are columns from "1st" to "10th", > and then the voter ticks some marks in the ballot. These ballots > were however almost similar. What ballot format did you assume? > Maybe ballots that have a box where the voter can write a number > (rating). Maybe a voting machine that can rearrange the > candidates on the screen in the correct ranking order. Maybe a > voting machine where the voter pushes buttons (next to the > candidate names) one by one. Maybe a white paper where the voter > can write the numbers of the ranked candidates in the correct > order. My point is just that maybe we should have some > definitions for the most common ways to fill a ballot (or u > se a voting machine).
A rating ballot should have a row for each candidate's name followed by four bubbles: [candidate name] (8) (4) (2) (1) The voter's rating of the candidate is the sum of the digits of the darkened bubbles. This allows voters that can do addition up to 8+4+2+1=15 to rate candidates on a scale of zero to fifteen. If that is too hard, I recommend a scale of zero to seven that requires only the ability to add up to the sum 4+2+1=7. Psychometric experts claim that in most dimensions human perception is unable to distinguish more than about seven levels, anyway. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
