2012-12-09T17:1244Z, Jameson Quinn:
> 2012/12/8 ⸘Ŭalabio‽ <[email protected]>
> 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
>> I wish to find a way to merge Score-Voting and Majority-Judgement into
>> something even better.
> In order to find something better, we would at least need to know
> what's wrong with what we have.
I am just curious. This is just a thought-experiment. I see nothing
wrong with Score-Voting. My biggest problem with Majority-Judgement is that it
needs more testing. This is what I advocate:
0. Remove the overvote rule, thus turning Plurality-Voting into
Approval Voting.
1. Expand the range from 0 to 1 to from negative -99 to positive
+99, thus turning Approval Voting into Score-Voting.
While a tried to explain advanced voting to PegaSisters and Bronies, I
had an interesting idea. I am almost ready to submit my idea to the mailing
list Electoral Methods. I definitely do not advocate the adoption of a voting
system I just pulled out of mine ass —— evidently, we just went from ponies
to asses ;-) —— last week. The idea was combining the expressivity of
Score-Voting with the resistance to tactical voting of Majority-Judgement.
> Jameson
“⸘Ŭalabio‽”
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
