Here's a completely general way of getting scores from rankings. It probably won't work on all methods (a nonlinearity measure will show how well it fits), but it could be interesting even so:

In Plurality, what does it mean when one says that X has 49 votes and Y has 30? Among other things, it means that Y needs 49 - 30 = 19 additional votes to tie X.

If we transport this to a ranked balloting system, we get a reasoning that Y is k points behind X if adding k copies of some kind of ballot that ranks Y first would make Y tie X. If the voting method has an abrupt change (from X > Y to Y > X), then, by median-esque reasoning, we could say that the tie happens at half the highest weight that still has X > Y plus half the lowest weight where Y > X.

By adding ballots that rank a lower candidate first until that lower candidate ties the next one up, we can get relative scores for pairs of candidates. If we do so for *all* candidates, we get a system of equation with n unknowns (number of candidates) and n-1 terms (number of relative scores). If we make an assumption for the nth term - e.g. that the sum of the scores should be the number of voters - we can then solve the set of equations and get scores.

For instance, if we put the 2009 Burlington data (restricted to Montroll, Kiss, and Wright alone) into Rob LeGrand's rbvote system at http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~legrand/rbvote/calc.html, then for Minmax (Simpson), we get that:

Montroll wins if we don't do anything (of course).
It takes 590 K>W>M votes for Kiss to tie Montroll (s_M - s_K = 590)
It takes 169 and a half W>M>K votes for Wright to tie Kiss. (s_K - s_W = 169.5) There are 8833 voters in all (s_M + s_K + s_W = 8833). There were 8980 Burlington voters, but not all of them expressed preferences between M, W, and K.

Solving this, we get:

s_M = 20365 / 6 = 3394.16...
s_K = 16825 / 6 = 2804.16...
s_W =  7904 / 3 = 2634.66...

and the relative support is:

Montroll: 38.43%
Kiss:     31.75%
Wright:   29.83%

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

Reply via email to