[EM] Re: Generic Name for the "Gerald Ford" candidate

[Araucaria Araucana]

On 27 Apr 2005 at 21:43 UTC-0700, Araucaria Araucana wrote:
>S> immons, Forest <simmonfo <at> up.edu> writes:
>> 
>> Russ said ...
>> 
>>>  I'd label it something like "[End Approved Candidates]".
>> 
>> Forest replies...
>> 
>> I like your"End Approved Candidates" or perhaps "Approval/Disapproval Cutoff
> Rank."
>> 
>> How about,  "I disapprove candidates ranked after this rank:"?
>> 
>> Some other suggestions that have been entertained are ..
>> 
>> 1. Minimum Acceptable Candidate (MAC)
>> 
>> 2.  Least Passing Grade (LPG)  [for use with grade ballots]
>> 
>> 3.  None of the Below (NOTB)
>> 
>> I'm sure that somebody with the gift of gab can improve on these suggestions.
>
>
> I'm starting to lean toward "Neutral Preference Rank".  I'm thinking
> that a CR-like point system, +1 for candidates you favor, 0 for
> neutral, -1 for oppose, would make more sense to the voter.  Much
> the same as 1 approve / 0 not approve.

On further thought, I think "Neutral Preference" may be sufficient,
and it avoids the charged 'NPR' acronym. ;-)

I should clarify that I am not advocating a CR method of 1,0,-1, but
the approval cutoff can be explained as if that method were being
used:

  - Ranking above Neutral Preference means you have a positive opinion
    about the candidate.  The higher you rank X above NP (i.e., more
    ranks between X and NP), the higher your positive opinion of X.

  - Ranking below Neutral Preference means you have a negative opinion
    about the candidate.  The lower you rank X below NP, the lower
    your opinion of X.

  - Satisfactory results come from placing the Neutral Preference line
    just below your highest-ranked "most electable" candidate.

It might also be of use to count an NP-equal-ranked candidate with 1/2
of the vote each way (1/2 NP>X, 1/2 X>NP), but that isn't required.

-- 
araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com