2012-04-13T:17:09Z, “Robert Bristow-Johnson”
<[email protected]>:
> On 4/13/12 3:11 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>> I have had interactions with people on this list hating rated ballots.
>> I have a question for them:
> and my question for you is: how high should a voter rate his/her
> contingency choice?
As high or low as the voter likes.
> he/she does not want to harm their favorite candidate (that would
> indicate rating the 2nd choice with 0) and he/she does not want to help their
> last choice (which would suggest ranking the 2nd choice higher).
You have a legitimate point. That is why I favor multiple rounds. I
even wrote a post about this just a few days ago called
“A procedure for handling large numbers of candidates using scorevoting
with primaries and runoffs.”
2012-04-10T01:57:49Z
If you do not have the post, I shall forward you a copy, at your
request.
>> If the ballot would allow both ratings and rankings, ¿would that be
>> acceptable?
> sounds simple. i'm sure the electorate or the legislature will go for
> that.
I like sarcasm.
> it's also important to have a consistent rule that applies to every
> voter. while every voter has a choice of ranking vs. rating, it's not
> particularly consistent. it's consistent regarding the *choice* but the
> actually quantitative measure is not
I included a table as an example about how to quantify it. The
algorithm is thus:
1 divided by ranking. Take the resulting fraction and multiply it by
99. Round the result to the nearest integer.
>> The ballot could allow ranking or ratings with equal rankings or
>> ratings allowed. The rankings would then be converted to ratings like thus:
>> -1:
>> -99
>> -2:
>> -50
>> -3:
>> -33
>> -4:
>> -25
>> -5:
>> -20
>> -6:
>> -17
>> -7:
>> -14
>> -8:
>> -12
>> -9:
>> -11
>> 0:
>> 00
>> +9:
>> +11
>> +8:
>> +12
>> +7:
>> +14
>> +6:
>> +17
>> +5:
>> +20
>> +4:
>> +25
>> +3:
>> +33
>> +2:
>> +50
>> +1:
>> +99
>> ¿Would this be acceptable?
> as acceptable as Borda.
The thing is that it is not Borda.
> you think that Borda count is a good idea?
In Borda, the second-placed candidate gets n-1 points of the
first-placed candidate. That means that in polarized elections with much
burial, the lack-lusters who get placed second for burying the competition can
get more points than the serious candidates. In Borda, one can also win by
running a clone-army for the same reason.
In this system, the second-placed candidate only gets half the votes of
the first-placed candidate. It is more like The Oklahoma primary electoral
system, but differs in that one can vote against candidates in addition to
voting for candidates and can equally rank.
> it's just a mapping and is, whatever you call it, is a Score ballot.
Yes, but those insisting on ranking can rank. That should make them
happy.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
