Borda Count

[Bart Ingles]

Forest Simmons wrote:
> 
> Suppose you have 16 candidates to rank.  You know how each of them stands
> on the four issues that you consider vital.  No two have the same profile
> on these issues, so if we represent "agrees with you" and "disagrees with
> you" by the letters a and d respectively, the 16 candidates can be
> identified by their profiles:  aaaa, aaad, aada, aadd, adaa, adad, adda,
> addd, daaa, daad, dada, dadd, ddaa, ddad, ddda, dddd
> 
> In an informal non-binding poll you are asked to rate them on a scale of
> zero to 100%, so naturally you rate them in proportion to the number of
> issues on which they agree with you (assuming all of the issues are
> equally important to you).
> 
> aaaa gets 100%
> addd, dadd, ddad, ddda get identical ratings of 75%
> aadd, adad, adda, daad, dada, ddaa get identical ratings of 50%
> daaa, adaa, aada, aaad  get identiacl ratings of 25%
> dddd gets 0% .
> 
> Next, in another informal non-binding poll you are asked to rank the
> candidates.
> 
> Since you cannot distinguish all of them on the issues, you use looks and
> personality to break up the groups with identical ratings:
> 
> aaaa > aaad > aada > ... > dddd
> 
> The second pollster immediately converts your rankings to a rating via the
> Borda Count with  rates between 0/15 and 15/15.
> 
> Which would you consider to be a more accurate representation of your
> estimation of the candidates' abilities to represent your viewpoint in
> the legislature?
> 
> Forest

The first, of course.