2012:12-08T08:30:24Z, Kristofer Munsterhjelm:
> On 12/08/2012 06:19 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
>> 1.
>> This is my preferred range:
>> Negative -99 to positive +99
> The ponies already objected to your preferred range, and I think their
> objection has validity. If they find it too hard to find the right rating
> between -99 and +99, then they'll consider the method bad however you put it.
> Again, RBJ has voiced the same point here on the list: "Range asks for too
> much, Approval asks for too little".
¡That is so last week! I wish to find a way to merge Score-Voting and
Majority-Judgement into something even better.
>> 2.
>> I imagine that, for Americans, using adjectives should be harder than
>> using the alphabetical scale of A+ though F-.
>
> 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.
I attempt to find a workaround, but for the time being, A through F
without + and - is fine.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
