> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 16:46:02 -0700 > From: Ken Johnson > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EM] Efforts to improve on CR's strategy
> SincereCR: A(0.7), B(0.5), C(0.3), D(0.1), E(-0.1), F(-0.3) > (This assumes signed CR's, with an approval cutoff of zero.) What I call > "ExaggerateCR" simply applies a linear transformation so that the max > and min CR's are +1 and -1: > ExaggerateCR: A(1.0), B(0.6), C(0.2), D(-0.2), E(-0.6), F(-1.0) Ignoring the names of any voting methods for a brief moment, here are some what I think are correct definitions in terms of candidates: Cardinal Ratings are a set of scores that range from 0 to 1. 1 means perfect, 0 means the EXTREME worst. By definition, it is possible for no candidate to get a 0 or 1. This is your SincereCR. Cardinal Utilities (i.e. Social Utilities) are a set of scores that range from 0 to 1. 1 is given to the best candidate and 0 to the worst. The other candidates are given scores in between the best and worst candidates as appropriate. This is your ExaggerateCR. Ordinal Utilities is the same as ranking. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility> for details. Note that when the Cardinal Ratings Method is talked about, it is assumed that the ballots cast are Cardinal Utilities! By the way, can anybody explain the following statement from the above Wikipedia web page: "The concept of cardinal utility suffers from the absence of an objective measure of utility when comparing the utility gained from consumption of a particular good by one individual as opposed to another individual. For this reason, neoclassical economics abandoned utility as a foundation for the analysis of economic behaviour, in favour of an analysis based upon preferences [i.e. rankings]." In the terms of my definition of Cardinal Ratings, does this mean that "perfect" cannot really be defined? Thanks, Gervase. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info