[EM] 2-step CR: A proposal

[Forest Simmons]

Since you asked for comments:

This method would be fine, so if it is easier to sell than our other
similar proposals, then it would be the one to push.

However, if I understand correctly, the reason for increasing the number
of levels is to give less incentive to rate compromise right up there with
favorite.  This could be accomplished with 3 level CR by assigning values
of 10, 9, and 0 to the three levels.

Forest

On Wed, 22 May 2002, [iso-8859-1] Alex Small wrote:

> Donald has voiced repeated objections to methods that fail (among other
> criteria) to guarantee the election of the first choice of the majority
> (assuming he exists) and allow lower choices to harm preferred candidates.
>
> Let's go one step further with 3-level approval to satisfy the first
> objection and at least give the lower choices less weight:  Use Cardinal
> Ratings, and stipulate that if a majority gives somebody the highest rating
> then he wins (if two such candidates exist then whichever is given the
> highest rating by a larger majority, to handle perceived clones).
>
> Otherwise, elect the candidate with the highest average rating.
>
> To mitigate incentives for insincerely rating somebody equal to favorite I
> recommend using a wide scale, say 0 to 5 or 0 to 10.  This way you can (if
> you wish) give a lower choice weight very nearly equal to your favorite,
> but you can also give him much lower weight if you wish.
>
> This seems to retain the advantages of 3-level approval, but gives voters
> more flexibility.  There is a slightly stronger incentive to insincerely
> rate somebody equal to favorite, but using a wide scale should
> substantially mitigate that.
>
> Comments?
>
> Alex
>
> ----
> For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
> please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
>
>

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em