One reason I have been limiting myself to 0..10 in recent postings,
rather than 0..100 or some such, is that the former seems less likely to
convey an unintended false precision -- even if it were possible to
collect sincere ratings with one part in 100 accuracy, there would be
little agreement on
Minor addition to my last posting-
With a 0 to 100 scale, there would be 101 units.
The 51 to 100 (50 units) would be YES.
The 0 to 50 (51 units) would be NO.
Similar for 0 to 10-- 11 units
6 to 10 (5 units) would be YES.
0 to 5 (6 units) would be NO.
To keep things somewhat simple (for the l
Mr. Ossipoff wrote in part-
Demorep: Will you start advocating -100 to +100 as an improvement over
IRV?
---
D- The use of ratings would be to upgrade Approval (not IRV) to match
reality--- even acceptable candidates have different degrees of acceptability.
A YES (shorthand for 0 to +100)/NO (
Demorep wrote:
>
>Ratings go from plus 100 percent support to minus 100 percent opposition.
>
>B 95
>D 80
>E -20
>A -90
>others -100
A -100 to +100 ratings system might be a very winnable reform proposal.
It's obvious, well-known & familiar, gives voters good freedom of
expression, and is stra
Thanks to everyone for their insights on the Borda Count.
I do not intend to propose the use of the Borda Count (or any other method
that converts rankings to ratings) as a practical election method. But
when someone (like Craig L.) proposes a hypothetical situation in terms of
rankings, and ask
I prefer 0 to 100 percent (or 0.0 to 1.0). Says the same thing, but
simpler.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> For newer folks-
>
> Ratings go from plus 100 percent support to minus 100 percent opposition.
>
> B 95
> D 80
> E -20
> A -90
> others -100
>
> Giving a rating to each ranked choice
For newer folks-
Ratings go from plus 100 percent support to minus 100 percent opposition.
B 95
D 80
E -20
A -90
others -100
Giving a rating to each ranked choice would lessen the *mandate* syndrome
that too often leads to power madness in public officers (especially
*politicians* in legislat
Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> If you have a definite preference here, then the Borda Count doesn't
> represent you additively, as in the common assumption of aggregation of
> partial individual utilities. As Joe Weinstein pointed out, this problem
> is related to the additive assumption of aggrega
I can't speak for Mike, but my own view is that there really is no good
way to convert rankings to ratings. There might be a way to argue that
some of the ranked choices have more relevance, and thus deserve more
weight than a strict Borda weighting, but I don't see how this could be
a major imp
In a recent posting Mike Ossipoff mentioned that there are better
alternatives than the Borda Count for converting ranked ballots to
ratings.
I'm not sure what he had in mind, but here's one thought along those
lines.
Suppose that someone came running after a two winner election and told me
that
10 matches
Mail list logo
