On 4/14/12 3:42 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> but your mapping makes the ranked ballot synonymous with the score ballot.
that is my point.
In all voting systems, one counts votes at some point. ScoreVoting is
just more explicit about it.
no, Score voting does *not* count votes. it totals scores or ratings.
Olympic judges are *not* voting for their favorite contestant. they are
scoring or rating them, ostensibly objectively. but we go into the
voting booth as *partisans* and we put *all* of the voting power we have
(that is limited by "One person, one vote") behind the candidates that
represent our political interests.
it's not the same.
>>>> The ballot could allow ranking or ratings with equal rankings or
ratings allowed. The rankings would then be converted to ratings like thus:
> so you're saying that we can have our choice between rating and ranking,
as long as we choose rating.
Frankly, I do not see what the big deal is, given that at some point
one must quantify, anyway.
it's called "bait-and-switch", Ŭalabio. you say "here is a method that
should accommodate both you Ranked-Choice advocates and us Score
advocates", but when we buy the product, we find that it is only a Score
ballot.
in a system that quantifies according to the principle of
One-person-one-vote, it doesn't matter that you like your candidate much
more than i like my candidate. our votes count equally anyway.
the ranked ballot is there *only* to deal with voter contingencies.
unless it's Borda, then the ranked ballot is there to score the
candidates in a crude manner. that's why Borda is a crappy way to
tabulate ranked ballots.
gotta go to New Hampshire (a possible swing state, Vermont is safe) to
campaign for Obama. talk to you guys later.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
