[EM] justified criticism, higher/lower

[James Gilmour]

James Green-Armytage > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 6:48 AM
> 
> >This is an example of where expert jargon is counter-intuitive to a 
> >beginner. If a completed ranked ballot looks like this:
> >Candiate    Rank
> >A           2
> >B           3
> >C           1
> >D           4
> >We tend to loosely say that "C is ranked 'higher' than B" which is
> >counter-intuitive because the number 1 is 'lower' than the number 3.
> >Anthony
> 
> This is basically a question of common usage. I'm not totally 
> sure, but I think that there are plenty of other contexts 
> where a ranking of "1" is considered to be a very "high" 
> ranking, "higher" than a ranking of 2 or 10. Of course, in 
> most cases, a *score* of 1 is considered to be lower than a 
> score of 2, but when you're talking about ranking rather 
> score, lower numbers are generally understood to represent 
> higher rankings.
> 
> Anyway, yes, I guess it can be confusing sometimes, but I 
> don't think that the usage is specific to voting methods.

This "confusion" arises because of the use of the word "ranking", where the winner could have the
lowest score or the highest score, depending on how the rankings are to be assessed.  In elections
that use ranking in Australia, in Ireland and in the UK, the instructions on the ballot paper tell
the voter to mark the candidates in "the order of your preference", with "1 against your first
preference", etc.  This ordering, "1" = first (most preferred), is implicitly accepted by all who
use the term "preferential voting".  It has been like this for more than a century.
James