[EM] I hit upon why rating is easier than ranking.

[⸘Ŭalabio‽]

	2011-05-09T07:46:22Z, “Kristofer Munsterhjelm” <Km_Elmet at Lavabit.Com>:

> 	⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:

>> With ranking, one must determine and remember the full rank order.  It is very easy to forget:

>> 	“¡Darn!  ¡I should have ranked Candidate T between Candidates I  and
>> L!”

>> 	This problem does not exist with rating.

> 	It exists in the manner it would also exist in 0-to-n rated voting. If you forget to rate candidate X, he would get the default bottom rating of 0, same as if you forget to rank candidate X, he would get the default bottom "unranked" rank.

	With a ranked ballot, one must get a new ballot and rerank all of the candidates and remember to put Candidate T between Candidates I and L.  This is part of the reason ranked ballots have such high spoilage-rates.

	With Scorevoting, the ballotvalidator (optical scanner would catch the omission.  The voter would then rate the candidate.  A candidate on a scorevoting ballot, would look like thus:

	Kristofer Munsterhjelm
	[ ] Abstain (00), [ ] +99, [ ] -99, [ ] +Positive, [ ] -Negative
10s:	[0]0 [1]0 [2]0 [3]0 [4]0 [5]0 [6]0 [7]0 [8]0 [9]0
01s:	0[0] 0[1] 0[2] 0[3] 0[4] 0[5] 0[6] 0[7] 0[8] 0[9]


	The ballotvalidator indicates skipped candidates.  The voter can fix the ballot (at this point it is incomplete  ——  not spoiled  ——  so the voter can fix the ballot without having to start over with a fresh ballot.

	Notice that the ballot has all of the options a voter needs:

	*	An abstain defaulting to 00.
	*	+99 (at least 1 candidate in a race with 2 or more candidates must receive +99 and smart voters should vote more than 1 candidate +99).
	*	-99 (at least 1 candidate in a race with 2 or more candidates must receive -99 and smart voters should vote more than 1 candidate -99).
	*	+Positive (makes the score positive).
	*	-Negative (makes the score negative).
	*	10s (decide the 10s).
	*	01s (decide the 01s).

	The pollworkers merely sum the votes.  It is that simple.