IRV inconsistency

[Buddha Buck]

DEMOREP1 at aol.com writes:

> Responding to  Buddha Buck ---
> 
> Many areas have rotated names on the ballots in various precincts for the 
> various offices (to reduce the well known *donkey* top of ticket vote) --- 
> which affects how the ballots would be marked (using whatever method-- 
> *absolute* (such as YES/NO) and/or *relative* (such as 1, 2, etc.).

Given the lack of context, this seems like a complete non-sequitor to
my comments.  Could you please provide some context so I can see how
this fits in with what I was saying.  It is possible we are
misunderstanding each other, and I'd like to fix that if possible.

> 
> "Grading" (for each candidate, an A, B, C, D, F grade) is a shorthand form of 
> scale voting for a range of scale votes.
> 
> A = 100 to 93 (?)
> B =  92 (?) to 85 (?)
> Etc.
> F = 40 (?) - 0

True, but I fail to see how any "absolute" measure (including YES/NO)
can't be interpreted as a shorthand form of scale voting.