2011/8/5 Dave Ketchum <[email protected]> > 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 >
I'm sorry. You're talking about during the counting phase. I was talking about the algorithm going on in the voter's head. Assuming that "how good is candidate X on this absolute scale?" is an atomic operation, and "is X better than Y" is another one. > > > >> . 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
