⸘Howdy‽
For some reason, some prefer ranked ballots over scored ballots. I say we give to them what they want: I: "So you want to rank. Well now, I can give to you ranking not just with positive values but negative ranks as well." Ranked Voter: “⸘I can express extreme displeasure without burying the evil candidate under zillions of donkey-votes‽ I: “¡Yes!” Ranked Voter: “¿How?” I: “Let us suppose that you rank Thus:” Mary: “+1” Ed: “+2” Carl: “-2” Sylvester: “-1” “We count those as 1 over your rank: Mary: “1/+1” Ed: “1/+2” Carl: “1/-2” Sylvester: “1/-1” “For making counting easy, we use 2520, the least common multiple of all counting numbers unto 9, and multiply it by your score: Mary: “+2520” Ed: “+1260” Carl: “-1260” Sylvester: “-1520” "We simply sum the votes." “The full range of absolute values are thus:” 2520 1260 0840 0630 0504 0420 0360 0315 0280 ¿What is your opinion about uniting score/rank-voting thus? ¡Peace! -- “⸘Ŭalabio‽” <[hidden email]> Skype: Walabio An IntactWiki: http://intactwiki.org “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” —— Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info |
Well, your argument includes describing the method you're going to use to count the ballots. So this could only work on people who have a preference about ballot format but no preference about the method used.
Le dimanche 3 mars 2019 à 13:48:17 UTC−6, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ <[hidden email]> a écrit :
⸘Howdy‽ For some reason, some prefer ranked ballots over scored ballots. I say we give to them what they want: I: "So you want to rank. Well now, I can give to you ranking not just with positive values but negative ranks as well." Ranked Voter: “⸘I can express extreme displeasure without burying the evil candidate under zillions of donkey-votes‽ I: “¡Yes!” Ranked Voter: “¿How?” I: “Let us suppose that you rank Thus:” Mary: “+1” Ed: “+2” Carl: “-2” Sylvester: “-1” “We count those as 1 over your rank: Mary: “1/+1” Ed: “1/+2” Carl: “1/-2” Sylvester: “1/-1” “For making counting easy, we use 2520, the least common multiple of all counting numbers unto 9, and multiply it by your score: Mary: “+2520” Ed: “+1260” Carl: “-1260” Sylvester: “-1520” "We simply sum the votes." “The full range of absolute values are thus:” 2520 1260 0840 0630 0504 0420 0360 0315 0280 ¿What is your opinion about uniting score/rank-voting thus? ¡Peace! -- “⸘Ŭalabio‽” <[hidden email]> Skype: Walabio An IntactWiki: “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” —— Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info |
In reply to this post by walabio
Ranking can always be inferred from ratings if enough ratings slots are
available to give each candidate a different rating. "Some people" like the idea of the Single Transferable Vote algorithm and others like the idea of always electing the Condorcet winner. Neither of these concepts have any use for ratings or "score" ballots. I am a bit disconcerted by the concept of "negative ranks". The method ⸘Ŭalabio‽ proposes seems to me to be very Borda-like (and therefore not good). Chris Benham On 4/03/2019 6:18 am, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote: > ⸘Howdy‽ > > For some reason, some prefer ranked ballots over scored ballots. I say we give to them what they want: > > I: > "So you want to rank. Well now, I can give to you ranking not just with positive values but negative ranks as well." > > Ranked Voter: > “⸘I can express extreme displeasure without burying the evil candidate under zillions of donkey-votes‽ > > I: > “¡Yes!” > > Ranked Voter: > “¿How?” > > I: > “Let us suppose that you rank Thus:” > > Mary: > “+1” > > Ed: > “+2” > > Carl: > > “-2” > > Sylvester: > “-1” > > “We count those as 1 over your rank: > > Mary: > “1/+1” > > Ed: > “1/+2” > > Carl: > > “1/-2” > > Sylvester: > “1/-1” > > “For making counting easy, we use 2520, the least common multiple of all counting numbers unto 9, and multiply it by your score: > > Mary: > “+2520” > > Ed: > “+1260” > > Carl: > > “-1260” > > Sylvester: > “-1520” > > "We simply sum the votes." > > “The full range of absolute values are thus:” > > 2520 > 1260 > 0840 > 0630 > 0504 > 0420 > 0360 > 0315 > 0280 > > ¿What is your opinion about uniting score/rank-voting thus? > > ¡Peace! > --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info |
i am of the latter persuasion. whenever someone other than the Condorcet winner is elected (assuming there is a CW), then we've elected someone where the voters have marked their ballots that they prefer someone else. this is what happened in Burlington Vermont in 2009. > Neither of these concepts have any use for ratings or "score" ballots. yup. Score ballots require tactical voting from voters. How high should we score our second choice? Too high and we
help our second choice beat the first choice. Not high enough and we help our third choice beat our second choice. What to do, what to do? yup. bad idea. > The method ⸘Ŭalabio‽ proposes seems to me to be very Borda-like (and yup. not good. --
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |