# [EM] [RangeVoting] Re: Range Voting As an Issue

Dave Ketchum davek at clarityconnect.com
Fri Aug 5 20:09:46 PDT 2011

```On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:22 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 2011/8/5 Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> Brought out for special thought:
>>> rating is easier than ranking. You can express this
>>> computationally, by saying that ranking requires O(n²) pairwise
>>> comparisons of candidates (or perhaps for some autistic savants
>>> who heap-sort in their head, O[n log(n)]), while rating requires
>>> O(n) comparisons of candidates against an absolute scale. You can
>>> express it empirically; this has been confirmed by ballot spoilage
>>> rates, speed, and self-report in study after study.
>
>>
>
> This somehow does not fit as to rating vs ranking.  I look at A and
> B, doing comparisons as needed, and assign each a value to use:
> .     For ranking the values can show which exist:  A<B, A=B, or
> A>B, and can be used as is unless they need to be converted to
> whatever format may be acceptable.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

The ballot counter, seeing A and B each ranked, is going to step a
count for A<B or A>B if A is less than B or A is greater than B -
which difference exists matters but the magnitude of the differences
is of no interest.

Dave Ketchum
>
> .     For rating the values need to be scaled.
>
> There is no need to scale rating values for MJ. In fact, it is not
> the intention. A vote of "Nader=Poor, Gore=Good, Bush=Fair" is
> perfectly valid and probably fully strategic even on a ballot which
> includes "Unacceptable, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent".
>
> Thus what needs doing is a trivial bit of extra effort for rating.
> The comparison effort was shared.
>
> "Ballot spoilage rates" also puzzle.  Where can I find what magic
> lets non-Condorcet have less such than Condorcet, for I do not
> believe such magic exists, unless Condorcet is given undeserved
> problems.
>
> Right, I was thinking of strict ranking when I wrote that part.
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110805/e4bb88c9/attachment-0004.htm>
```