On May 10, 2011, at 1:03 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
2011-05-09T07:46:22Z, “Kristofer Munsterhjelm”
km_el...@lavabit.com:
⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
With ranking, one must determine and remember the full rank
order. It is very easy to forget:
“¡Darn! ¡I should have ranked Candidate T between
⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
In list Election-Methods run out of Electorama.Com, I hit upon why
rating is easier and faster than ranking:
With rating, one determines the best candidate and gives that
candidate the rating +99. One determines the worst candidate and
gives that
Hi,
So, not everybody knows that you can have equal ranking and truncation in
rank methods. But how about this idea that the default rating in Range
ought to be mid-range (i.e. half an approval)? Is this defensible? It
seems to me you'd get write-ins winning much of the time.
Or, if write-ins
2011-05-09T07:46:22Z, “Kristofer Munsterhjelm” km_el...@lavabit.com:
⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
With ranking, one must determine and remember the full rank order. It is
very easy to forget:
“¡Darn! ¡I should have ranked Candidate T between Candidates I and
L!”
This
In sincere / non-competitive Range mid-range default value could make sense. If
0 is the neutral value, then a negative value would mean that the voter prefers
a random unknown candidate to that candidate.
In competitive elections the default value should normally be the lowest value
/ ranking
¡Hello!
¿How fare you?
In list Election-Methods run out of Electorama.Com, I hit upon why
rating is easier and faster than ranking:
With rating, one determines the best candidate and gives that candidate
the rating +99. One determines the worst candidate and
