On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Kevin Venzke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Forest, > > --- En date de : Mer 27.7.11, [email protected] <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > Andy's chiastic method is a way of > > utilizing range ballots that has a much more mild incentive > > than > > Range itself to inflate ratings. He locates the > > method in a class of methods each of which is based on a > > different increasing function f from the interval [0,1 ] > > into the same interval: > > > > Elect the candidate with the highest fraction q such that > > at least the fraction f(q) of the ballots rate the > > candidate at fraction q of the maxRange value (assuming > > that minRange is zero). > > Hmmm. So, noting that I cannot test more than 4 slots due to the design > of the simulation, I want to take each candidate and ask: > Did 100% of the voters rate him 3/3? > Or else did 67+% of the voters rate him 2/3 or higher? > Or else did 33+% of the voters rate him 1/3 or higher? > And then the last possible question is trivial. > > That I believe is if f(q)=q. So what I want is this: > > > f(q)=q/2, and f(q)=(q+1)/2, > > So the first one asks: > 50% rated 3? 33.3% rated a 2+? 16.7% rated a 1+? > This is correct. > It is curious to me that the 50% figure should decrease. > > I'm not really sure how to interpret the second one. I was interpreting > the range of q to be 0-100%. I guess I will interpret (q+1) for a > four-slot ballot to mean 133.3%. So then I get: > 66.7% rated 3? 50% rated 2? 33.3% rated 1+? > It would be 100% rated 3? 83.3% rated a 2+? 66.7% rated a 1+? But you are right that it would probably work better with more grade levels. - Andy
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
