I like it Forest - Very simple and yet it makes a lot of sense. I can think of no objections to such a method. What does C/A stand for? Condorcet/Approval?
> From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EM] C//A > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > 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.) > > Whether or not it is easier to rate or to rank, I think that C//A works out > better with cardinal ballots than > with ordinal ballots: > > Elect the candidate X that (for any other candidate Y) is rated higher than Y > on more ballots than Y is > rated higher than X. If no such candidate exists, elect the candidate that > is rated above zero on the > greatest number of ballots. In case of a tie, among the tied candidates, > elect the one rated above one > on the greatest number of ballots. If still tied, among the still tied elct > the one rated above two on the > greatest number of ballots. Etc. > > In this version (with ratings on a scale of zero to N, with N at least seven, > you will never have to use a > random tie breaker. > > -- Kathy Dopp http://electionmathematics.org Town of Colonie, NY 12304 "One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the discussion with true facts." Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174 View some of my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=1451051 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
