2012/2/2 Juho Laatu <[email protected]> > On 2.2.2012, at 21.07, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > > > On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > > >> I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking. > >> (How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which > >> allows honest rating to be full-strength in practice; and SODA is the > >> only good system which allows anything easier. (And no, approval is not > >> easier than MJ, because approval forces some amount of strategizing.) > > > > As a contrast, to me, ranking is easier than rating. When I'm set to > rate, I tend to think about whether I rated the candidate just right or not > - did I rate him too high, too low? - but if I rank, I don't have to care > about that. All I have to do is get a general idea of the order of > preference, and then ask "do I like X better than Y or vice versa". > > > > Maybe I'm uncommon, but I thought I would say it. I've heard the claim > that rating is easier than ranking before, and maybe it still is -- to most > people. > > > > I'll also note that many of the ranked voting methods can be also be > applied even if the only information you can get from the voters or the > system is "is X better than Y" for pairs {X,Y}. Thus, these can be used to > determine winners in actual one-on-one contests (e.g. chess matches, > kittenwar-style preference elicitation) where it would be hard to use > ratings. > > I agree that it is very difficult to claim that rating would be easier > than ranking. Let's see what I can do. > > Attempt 1: It is difficult to write something like "a>b>c" on the ballot > paper, or to push buttons of the voting machine so that all the candidates > will be in the correct order. > > Answer 1: Don't use such procedures. If you want to be sure that ranking > at least as easy as rating, use same ballots as with rating. You can derive > rankings from them. >
This is a perfectly satisfactory answer (as long as the election method does not reward dishonest strategy). But in my experience, it is used more to dismiss than to answer the question; and for that, it does not serve. > > Attempt 2: Methods that do not allow equal ranking can not use rating > style ballots. > > Answer 2: Use better methods or use rating style ballots and split the > vote in two parts (or use random order). > > Attempt 3: If there are very many candidates, it is easier and faster to > rate them individually, one by one, rather than compare every candidate > pairwise to others. > > Answer 3: You can do this with rankings too if you are not interested in > determining the preference order of those candidates that are almost > equally good. Fast rating is also inaccurate in the sense that one may give > more points to A than B although A is worse than B. > Again, this is much the same as answer 1, and my response is the same. > > Attempt 4: People have used numbers and ratings in schools. > > Answer 4: Think that you are still in the school and just rate the > candidates (ratings will be derived from those ratings). > Balinski and Laraki make much of the fact that Majority Judgment uses ratings which have independent, absolute meaning, rather than being solely a relative scale. I think there is something to this argument. > > All the arguments are actually based on the fact that rankings can be > derived from ratings. In the case of rankings the voter need not care about > the scale of numbers that one uses (1,2,3 is as good as 1,49,50). > > Juho > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
