> And MJ itself does tiebreaking by providing + and - to the actual grade
> returned. For instance, in the 2007 Orsay experiment, Bayrou got Good+
> while Sarkozy got Good-. So I don't think the grade inputs should be given
> with + and -, because the method appends a + and - to the result as part of
> the tiebreak process.
>
By the way, I like the idea of an additional "AA" grade, so that A+ is
attainable. In theory, that also makes AA- possible, but I doubt any
candidate would ever be that good. (Previously, I'd suggested that the
additional grade be called "A+", but an "A+-" possibility would be too
confusing).
Also, I have no problem with the idea that there should be a table on the
ballot of grade:adjective correspondences somewhere on the ballot, probably
at the bottom. "AA:Excellent A:Very Good B:Good C:Fair D:Poor
F:Unacceptable". ("Reject" is an abbreviated translation from the French,
but in English the poor parallelism sets my teeth on edge. I'm not
threatening to cap anyone over it, though :). )
Jameson
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
