Mike is correct. Bucklin with equal rankings and truncation allowed is equivalent to ratings and does not require the complication in voting and counting that ratings introduces.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > MIKE OSSIPOFF > Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:17 PM > To: election-methods@electorama.com > Subject: Re: [EM] Steph: your rating method > > > Forest-- > > You wrote: > > The candidate with the maximum median rating is the ER > Bucklin (whole) > winner, assuming that if two candidates have the same median > rating R > 0, > then the one at or above R on the most ballots is the winner. > > I reply: > > Well that certainly answers my question, when I asked what > properties that > method would have! > > It would have some very valuable properties. It sounds like a > remarkably > brief way to define ERBucklin(whole). > > You continued: > > Ratings are a convenient way of providing for equal rankings > and keeping the > ballots from becoming too unwieldy when there are large numbers of > candidates, as in a big election without primaries. > > I reply: > > But how is ratings more convenient than rankings? As long as > the voters > understand that they can give the same rank number to as many > as they want > to, and that rank numbers needn't be consecutive? > > Because it's a rank method, wouldn't that be the simple and > direct form of > balloting for it? Wouldn't a ballot presented as a ratings > ballot confuse > people? > > Mike Ossipoff > > _________________________________________________________________ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today > - it's FREE! > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > ---- > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info