[EM] Re: Alternatives to Borda Count

[Bart Ingles]

One reason I have been limiting myself to 0..10 in recent postings,
rather than 0..100 or some such, is that the former seems less likely to
convey an unintended false precision -- even if it were possible to
collect sincere ratings with one part in 100 accuracy, there would be
little agreement on what to do with those ratings.

I'm more concerned about the gross anomalies, and 0..10 is just about
sufficient to show that in examples.

Bart




DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Minor addition to my last posting-
> 
> With a 0 to 100 scale, there would be 101 units.
> 
> The 51 to 100 (50 units) would be YES.
> The 0 to 50 (51 units) would be NO.
> 
> Similar for 0 to 10-- 11 units
> 
> 6 to 10 (5 units) would be YES.
> 0 to 5 (6 units) would be NO.
> 
> To keep things somewhat simple (for the lots of not genius folks who are
> voters), I would suggest the 0 to 10 scale at most.
> 
> For most folks there is best- better- OK- not OK (4 types) so a 0 to 10 scale
> can handle the various choices.
> 
> The zero could be dropped to have the number of upper and lower units (but
> again I note that lots of voters would like to vote absolute NO -- zero --
> for many candidates).