[EM] Re: Ted's DMC proposal

[Paul Kislanko]

At the risk of both complicating the discussion and (again) showing some
ignorance, I think the analogies are not quite precise and possibly not as
intuitive as it may seem.

Everybody understands the concept of grades, but in the classroom situation
all "alternatives" are in the same category and there is a single continuous
function of preference (by the grader). But when as a voter I divide the
alternatives into "those I like" and "those I don't like", I use different
criteria to relate degrees of "like" and "dislike".

This is confusing even me, but what I mean is I think it would be better to
use all A+, A, A-, ... D+, D, D- on only approved alternatives. Just because
my least-approved alternative gets a C- doesn't mean my least-hated
alternative gets a D+. The real gulf between the two is infinite.

The "assuming nobody you can put up with wins, which of the ones you can't
stand would be the least objectionable?" is a different question, and
something within the method should notice the difference. This can still be
one ballot, but to recognize the different cognitive processes at work,
maybe instead of A+, A, A- ... D+, D, D-, ... with a line drawn to separate
the continuous scale it should be something like
9,8,7...1,0,-1,-2,...-7,-8,-9.

The "assuming one of your choices doesn't win, who would be least
objectionable" is equivalent to holding 2 votes at once. I rank (or grade)
all of my approved alternatives, and then get presented with "now rank the
ones you disapprove". Something needs to make that directly transferrable. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
] On Behalf Of Monkey Puzzle
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 5:47 PM
> To: Forest Simmons
> Cc: election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com; Jobst Heitzig
> Subject: [EM] Re: Ted's DMC proposal
> 
> 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
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>