On 12/6/2012 1:54 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> ¿Why not just use the ranges 0 to 9 or negative -9 to positive +9
instead?
I am from the U.S. and don't like the idea of using A through F for
voting. Those letters have a different meaning in my mind. For
example, is "C" "average for a politician" or "average for a desired
leader"? And is grade inflation involved?
I like 0 to 10. Or how about +10 to -10? Or even better, +5 to -5?
+5
+4
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
Just expressing my opinion, since you asked.
Richard Fobes
On 12/6/2012 1:54 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
Yesterday, I noted that Majority-Judgements does not work if we have
too many adjectives because we have only so many adjectives and voters might
confuse adjectives too close in meaning.. ¿Would an alphabetical scale be
acceptable?:
In the United States of America, we grade students using letters:
A+
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
D-
F+
F
F-
I have 2 questions grading candidates on this scale. 1 question is for
people not in the United States of America. The other question is for everyone:
People outside the United States of America:
¿Do you Understand this Scale?
For everyone:
¿Is this scale acceptable to you?
Followup question:
If this scale is not acceptable to you, ¿why is it not acceptable to
you?
With 15 grades, this scale is not very different from the numerical
ranges of 0 to 9 or negative -9 to positive +9. This raises the question:
¿Why not just use the ranges 0 to 9 or negative -9 to positive +9
instead?
¡Peace!
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
