Gervase Lam wrote: > > 1) Identify the two frontrunners, and pick your favorite among them. > 2) Give your favorite frontrunner plus the runners who you think are > better than your favorite frontrunner a score of 2. > 3) Give your less favored frontrunner plus the runners who you think are > worse than your favorite frontrunner a score of 0. > 4) Give the other runners a score of 1. > > Step 4 is the "major" bit. I had missed out the runners who are in > between the two frontrunners. > > However, I don't think 3-level CR is as useful in a 0-info context. For > the situation I was thinking of using a voting method on, which is why I > joined this mailing list, I think the context is practically a 0-info > situation. > > In the 0-info case, the middle level is useful only for runners who are > exactly in the middle or at least near the middle. For the other runners, > you want to maximise or minimise their score in order to ensure your > ballot gains something. But how near the middle is near the middle? > > Hmmm. Thinking about the full-info case, wouldn't it be better to give > the runners identified in step 4 a score of 2? This reduces the 3-level > CR method to just 2 levels (i.e. Approval method).
Well, you could give those "Step 4" candidates whom you consider "better than average" a score of 2, and the rest a score of 0. I can't guarantee that this hasn't already been proposed, though. Bart ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info