On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:22 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2011/8/5 Dave Ketchum <[email protected]>
Brought out for special thought:
rating is easier than ranking. You can express this
computationally, by saying that ranking requires O(n²) pairwise
comparisons of candidates (or perhaps for some autistic savants
who heap-sort in their head, O[n log(n)]), while rating requires
O(n) comparisons of candidates against an absolute scale. You can
express it empirically; this has been confirmed by ballot spoilage
rates, speed, and self-report in study after study.
This somehow does not fit as to rating vs ranking. I look at A and
B, doing comparisons as needed, and assign each a value to use:
. For ranking the values can show which exist: A<B, A=B, or
A>B, and can be used as is unless they need to be converted to
whatever format may be acceptable.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.
The ballot counter, seeing A and B each ranked, is going to step a
count for A<B or A>B if A is less than B or A is greater than B -
which difference exists matters but the magnitude of the differences
is of no interest.
Dave Ketchum
. For rating the values need to be scaled.
There is no need to scale rating values for MJ. In fact, it is not
the intention. A vote of "Nader=Poor, Gore=Good, Bush=Fair" is
perfectly valid and probably fully strategic even on a ballot which
includes "Unacceptable, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent".
Thus what needs doing is a trivial bit of extra effort for rating.
The comparison effort was shared.
"Ballot spoilage rates" also puzzle. Where can I find what magic
lets non-Condorcet have less such than Condorcet, for I do not
believe such magic exists, unless Condorcet is given undeserved
problems.
Right, I was thinking of strict ranking when I wrote that part.
On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
...
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
