Yes, Richard
There is always a huge gap between a party's actions and their words.
Some day that fact will inspire a search for a more rational way of
selecting our leaders.
Fred
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
¡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
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
On 6.12.2012, at 23.54, ⸘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
Most of this discussion, if it relates to public elections, ignores the
electors. It takes no account of the real levels of literacy and numeracy. In
the UK approximately 25% of adults have a literacy level below that expected
for an adult. I do not think the overall situation in the USA
I'm in the U.S. Even here, where the standard educational scale is
alphabetical, I much prefer actual adjectives for the grades:
Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Reject
MJ works best when the voters, as much as possible, have a shared
understanding of the actual meaning of the grades.
