Hi Kristen, I'm having trouble understanding what your goal is in re-posting the first four paragraphs from this April post of mine. http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-April/027194.html
Is this some new kind of mailing list spam? Or did you have some questions about the method? In any case, thank you for bringing up this method again. I still like it and like to discuss it. I still haven't decided whether to call it "mutual median" or "chiastic voting" or something else. ~ Andy On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Kristen Eisenberg < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > > I have a new voting method and I think I need some help naming it. Let me > say, first of all, that I admit it may be too complicated for use by the > general public. It's a score aggregating method, like Score Voting. > > > Each voter scores each candidate on a scale of 0-100. Each candidate's > votes are aggregated independently, with their societal score given by > finding the largest number, x, such that x percent of the voters gave that > candidate a grade of x or higher. > > > So a candidate where 71% of the people gave a grade of 71 or higher (but > the > same can't be said of 71+epsilon) will get a final score of 71. > > > It shares a strategy-resistance property with the median that any voter > whose score was above the societal score, if he were allowed to change his > vote, could do nothing to raise the societal score. (Also, a voter whose > score was below the societal score could do nothing to lower the societal > score.) This means that if you're only grading one candidate (e.g. choosing > an approval rating for the sitting president), then there is a strong > incentive for everyone to submit an honest vote. > > > Kristen Eisenberg > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
