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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Aug 5, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 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.
>
"good" and "better" are not clear to me.  "How important" fits better  
as the reason the voter is assigning a higher rank.
>
>>
>> .     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/20110805/795233bc/attachment-0004.htm>