> Your response appears to be missing from the list. I'll quote the > paragraph I'm commenting on: >
Oh. You had emailed me off-list (yesterday) so I responded off-list. The process you describe seems to be a rather complicated way of finding > the top or bottom half of the votes. The fact that 'B' is higher than 'D' > and pushes a 'C' vote into the bottom half of the votes is nothing more > than a Yes/No decision. It helps you decide whether a candidate got more > than one-half the votes, but is devoid of additional value. A simple > Yes/No ballot yields precisely that result with no mathematical constructs. > > If a voter grades a candidate as 'B' rather than 'A', the voter has > detected some flaw in the candidate and is expressing it in the grade. To > treat that voter's vote as simply above or below the median is to debase > it. Why should the voter take the trouble to assign a grade if it's only > use is to place the vote in the higher or lower half of the votes cast? > > I'm sorry we disagree on this point, but if the grading system is to have > significance in the electoral process, the higher ranks must be more > valuable than the lower ranks. In this thread, I am only trying to clarify how MJ and CMJ work. I have not revealed my value judgments. What I personally think about these systems is quite nuanced. There are things I like about them, things I find very mathematically interesting, and things I don't like. ~ Andy
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
