I'm correcting what I assume was a typo in the subject line, and replying to selected quotes below:
On 17 Mar 2005 at 14:23 PST, Forest Simmons wrote: > Ted went on to say ... >> If you still want to call it "ACC", you could use this analogy to >> explain it: a long time back, I read an article which judged any movie >> by comparing it to "The Truth about Cats and Dogs" (which I have never >> seen). The premise was that if it's better, it's a good movie ;-), >> and if not, it's a bad movie. Substitute candidates for movies, >> mutatis mutandi ;-). > > Forest asks ... > > And use Gerald Ford as the standard of comparison? > :-) ... That would work. > > The winner by any of these equivalent formulations is equivalent to > the Ranked Pairs (and Beatpath, too!) winner, when the defeat strength > is measured by the approval of the pairwise winner in a pair. > > Forest: > > I'm not totally convinced of this, but I hope it is true. Well, I'm not completely convinced either, but most examples I find seem to bear it out. I'll think some more about it. > > Forest: > > If we have grade ballots we might as well try to use the extra CR > information if it doesn't cause strategy problems. > > Did you get my email suggesting using dyadic approval to avoid bunching of > candidates near the extreme ratings? Had to go look ... I see the email now. Okay, dyadics -- I see the basic idea, but I'd like to see an implementation before I say more. It might be fine for working groups but may be too complex for public elections. > > Ted: > > One way to implement it could be by using extra candidates like the > ACC (aka LPG). You could have 10 CR 'extra candidates' just like the > ACC, say with ratings from 100,90,...,10. > > Default rating for ranked candidates, if no CR candidate is ranked, is > 100 points. Default rating below the lowest ranked CR candidate is 0. > > Say CR100 is assigned 3rd place (or grade C)) -- anybody at or above > CR100's rank gets 100 points. If CR40 is ranked at 5th place (grade > E), candidates in 4th and 5th place get 40 points. If CR40 is the > lowest ranked CR candidate, any 6th-place or lower-ranked candidates > would get 0 points. > > Inconsistent CR candidate ranking (e.g.,CR10 ranked at 1st choice in > example above) would be ignored. > > This could very well be too complex for voters, but do you have > philosophical objections as well? > > Forest: > > Simplicity is part of philosophy :'] > > Your idea is ingenious, and may lead somewhere interesting. [blush] On further thought, probably too complex for public elections, but I'll run it by a few people. > > I think using A to Z graded ballots with the approval cutoff fixed > between letters M and N would be adequate and simpler, but thinking > of other possibilities can lead to other interesting ideas, so keep > forging ahead! > Not enough space on a ballot for 26 grades, I'm afraid. Butterfly ballots are bad enough ... Ted -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info