[EM] Re: Ted's DMC proposal

[Monkey Puzzle]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:30:39 -0800 (PST), Forest Simmons wrote:
> Ted, it looks like most list members prefer ordinal ballots with approval
> cutoffs to graded ballots. Perhaps those of us who like graded ballots are
> not vocal enough.

Hmm, did I miss something?  Or is it just a majority of those
expressing a preference? ;-)

Or is there a poll somewhere?

> 
> I like graded ballots, and I think that (for public proposal) the standard
> A,B,C,D,F scale is sufficient, with C as the default LPG slot.  Allowing
> +/- options would triple the resolution.

Sure, that seems reasonable.  For most voters, 3 approved ("passing
grade") and 2 unapproved ranks would be ample and fairly
self-explanatory.

Plus/minus options could be useful in case you want to insert a
candidate in between, and would give up to 9 approved and 6
disapproved grade levels without specifying a different LPG.  And of
course in that case you would make C-minus the default LPG.

Which begs the question, why bother with an LPG option at all?  Dave
Ketcham has suggested 9 options on an ordinal ballot.

Feel free to start editing this page:

http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=Graded_Ballot&action=edit

> 
> Of course, I've been grading students that way for nearly thirty years
> now, so it seems pretty natural to me.

I will run it by my friends to see if it passes the 'simple enough to
understand' test.

> 
> I understood your explanation about the advantages of using the LPG option
> (i.e. not approving all graded candidates) but I think it is more
> confusing than helpful.  If you move the default LPG to midrange, that
> part of the explanation could simply be ...
> 
> "The grades you assign to your disapproved candidates will help determine
> which of them wins in the event that none of your approved candidates
> wins."

Succinct.  Thanks!

> 
> My Best,
> 
> Forest
> 
> 

Ted
-- 
araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com