New sw method: "extreme scale"

[Saari at aol.com]

In a message dated 97-02-23 13:11:59 EST, SteveE writes:

>The interesting feature about this new method is that it's not a
>ranked ballot method.  It's a rating method.
>
>
>Define E to be the number of eligible voters.  
>Define C to be the number of candidates.
>
>Define S to be 2EC rounded up to the next power of 10.  This may
>be a huge number.  For example, with C = 3 candidates and E = 100
>voters, 2EC is 600, so S = 1000.
>
>1. Each voter rates each candidate on a scale ranging from 0 to S.
>2. The score of each candidate is the sum of the ratings assigned it 
>by the voters, normalized by dividing by S.  The winner is the 
>candidate with the highest score.

Actually, instead of a scale up to 1000 (variable depending on the #s of
voters/candidates), you might do better with a scale up to 1.0, with
unlimited levels of gradation, i.e. .5, .75, .997, .99834 etc.

Once you get people past "fraction-phobia", this has several advantages, the
main one being that the same scale will be used under a variety of
circumstances so people can get familiar with it.  Second is that it allows
each voter to use as "fine" or "coarse" gradations as they wish (instead of
an unnecessary fixed maximum level of resolution).  Also, the notation is
unambiguous even if voters neglect to include the decimal point.  Thus, .53
or  53 or 5300 all clearly mean the same thing on a "up to 1.0" scale.  Even
5.3 can be properly reinterpreted.

An interesting twist is to allow votes up to but *not* including the 1.0
endpoint.  Then for ordinary, low-res "single-digit" votes, the range would
be 0 to 9.  For an especially strong yes vote, someone might vote 99.  An
even stronger yes vote might be 9999.  This allows people to get carried away
as much as they like, yet score-wise all they are doing is getting closer and
closer to the limit value of 1.0.  Thus people are allowed to express extreme
opinions, but without taking over the group. Cute or what?

Mike S

I also note that the system as described doesn't distinguish "actively
opposed" from "lack of interest" toward a given candidate.  Hence I prefer a
plus-and-minus scale.