[EM] Re: Cardinal Pairwise

[James Green-Armytage]

Steven Barney <barnes99 at uwosh.edu> writes:
>I don't know your definition of "Cardinal Pairwise," but that could be
>another name for the Borda Count.

	I don't like the Borda count at all, at least not for use in contentious
elections. Here are a few reasons why I don't like the Borda count: 
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/voting_methods/antiborda.htm

	Cardinal pairwise is definitely not another name for the Borda count. In
short, it uses ordinal information (rankings) to measure the direction of
pairwise defeats, and it uses cardinal information (ratings) to measure
the strength of pairwise defeats. I argue that the method provides more
meaningful resolution to sincere majority rule cycles, and helps to
prevent severe strategic incursion. You are invited to read a short paper
about cardinal pairwise, which I wrote last summer. Here are some links to
the paper in pdf format and html format. (The fourth link is a version of
the paper published by Voting Matters.)

http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.pdf
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm
http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp21.pdf
http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE19/ISSUE19.PDF

my best,
James

P.S. A google search for "cardinal pairwise" would have given you most of
the links above.