fsimm...@pcc.edu wrote:
Trying to build a metric from a set of ranked ballots is fraught with
difficulties, and your outline of a procedure for doing it is
interesting to me.
The simplest, least sophisticated idea I have so far that seems to
have some use is to define the distance between two candidates X and
Y to be the number of ballots on which at least one of the two is
truncated.
I'm not sure if that really works. It could give a rough distance
between zones of acceptable and unacceptable candidates, but beyond that
it gets less reliable. To take a Norwegian example: we have two broad
coalitions: one that's left-of-center and one that's right-of-center.
Say I prefer the left-of-center coalition. I would still rank the
right-of-center coalition's individual parties because "if I have to get
one of them, I could at least try to pull them as close as possible to
my view".
Popularity could also be a factor. In a Bush-Gore-Nader setting, voters
might rank Bush, Gore, and Nader, but skip Browne, Hagelin, and Phillips.
(Truncation would also pose a problem to the inference idea I gave in my
earlier post. In general, noise or variety in the amount of information
provided, in any manner, would. But it makes sense to consider perfect
situations before going to imperfect ones.)
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
