[EM] Steph: your rating method

[Paul Kislanko]

Mike is correct. Bucklin with equal rankings and truncation allowed is
equivalent to ratings and does not require the complication in voting and
counting that ratings introduces.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at electorama.com] On Behalf Of 
> MIKE OSSIPOFF
> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:17 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Steph: your rating method
> 
> 
> Forest--
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> The candidate with the maximum median rating is the ER 
> Bucklin (whole) 
> winner, assuming that if two candidates have the same median 
> rating R > 0, 
> then the one at or above R on the most ballots is the winner.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Well that certainly answers my question, when I asked what 
> properties that 
> method would have!
> 
> It would have some very valuable properties. It sounds like a 
> remarkably 
> brief way to define ERBucklin(whole).
> 
> You continued:
> 
> Ratings are a convenient way of providing for equal rankings 
> and keeping the 
> ballots from becoming too unwieldy when there are large numbers of 
> candidates, as in a big election without primaries.
> 
> I reply:
> 
> But how is ratings more convenient than rankings? As long as 
> the voters 
> understand that they can give the same rank number to as many 
> as they want 
> to, and that rank numbers needn't be consecutive?
> 
> Because it's a rank method, wouldn't that be the simple and 
> direct form of 
> balloting for it? Wouldn't a ballot presented as a ratings 
> ballot confuse 
> people?
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today 
> - it's FREE! 
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> 
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>