[EM] C//A

[fsimmons at pcc.edu]

> From: Juho Laatu 
> 
> On 12.6.2011, at 2.17, fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
> 
> > Another solution is to infer the rankings from range style 
> ballots. (As a retired teacher I find iot easier to 
> > rate than to rank, anyway.)
> 
> Maybe the default ballot formats should also have names or 
> something. A rating based ballot could be such that there is a 
> row for each candidate name, and then there are columns from "9" 
> to "0", and then the voter ticks some marks in the ballot. A 
> ranking based ballot could be such that there is a row for each 
> candidate name, and then there are columns from "1st" to "10th", 
> and then the voter ticks some marks in the ballot. These ballots 
> were however almost similar. What ballot format did you assume? 
> Maybe ballots that have a box where the voter can write a number 
> (rating). Maybe a voting machine that can rearrange the 
> candidates on the screen in the correct ranking order. Maybe a 
> voting machine where the voter pushes buttons (next to the 
> candidate names) one by one. Maybe a white paper where the voter 
> can write the numbers of the ranked candidates in the correct 
> order. My point is just that maybe we should have some 
> definitions for the most common ways to fill a ballot (or u
> se a voting machine).

A rating ballot should have a row for each candidate's name followed by four bubbles:

[candidate name]  (8) (4) (2) (1)

The voter's rating of the candidate is the sum of the digits of the darkened bubbles. This allows voters 
that can do addition up to 8+4+2+1=15 to rate candidates on a scale of zero to fifteen.  If that is too 
hard, I recommend a scale of zero to seven that requires only the ability to add up to the sum 4+2+1=7.


Psychometric experts claim that in most dimensions human perception is unable to distinguish more 
than about seven levels, anyway.