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

Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Fri Aug 5 20:13:26 PDT 2011

```2011/8/5 Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>

> 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
>

I'm sorry. You're talking about during the counting phase. I was talking
about the algorithm going on in the voter's head. Assuming that "how good is
candidate X on this absolute scale?" is an atomic operation, and "is X
better than Y" is another one.

>
>
>
>> .     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/daf75aa0/attachment-0004.htm>
```