Ken Johnson wrote:
As I understand it, the main problem with CR is that it is strategically equivalent to Approval.
I reply:
That might be a problem to those who don't like Approval. But to those of us who like Approval, CR's strategic equivalence to Approval isn't a problem. It's what makes CR one of the best methods.
Of course the mere fact that a new ratings-count isn't equivalent to Approval doesn't mean that it's an improvement. It might be something that some people, maybe including you, consider to not be as good as CR or Approval.
Now, if you want to suggest a different way of counting ratings, other than just adding them up as CR does, and you find one that's no longer equivalent to Approval, the fact that it isn't equivalent to Approval doesn't say enough about it: If it doesn't have Approval's strategy situation, then what strategy situation does it have instead?
In other words, for any alternative way of counting ratings, to find a winner from the ratings, its merit depends on what properties you can show that it has. What criteria does it meet? Criteria already in use, and maybe new criteria that you propose.
Of course it also depends on what undesirable properties or criterion failures someone else can show that it has.
Likewise, of course for alternative rank-counts.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
