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

[Dave Ketchum]

On May 10, 2011, at 1:03 AM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> 	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.

Disagreed - see below.
>
>
>> 	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.

If trying to be realistic in comparing methods, it would make sense to  
put comparable effort into designing ballots and rules for voters.

Ratings and rankings both need numbers, though ratings, as usually  
done, need a larger range than voters could make use of for ranking.

Unranked/unrated are best done by the voter saying nothing, though  
both methods could demand explicit action by voters (possibility of  
fraud can matter).  Making equal ratings/rankings acceptable makes  
sense to some.

So for this comparison a voter could have ranked/rated I as 05 and L  
as 06, then realize need to attend to T.
.     Puzzling that this voter considers T too important to leave  
unranked/unrated but:
.     Assume 05.5 is impossible for the ballots used.
.     Could make T 05 or 06 - VERY close in Condorcet, with ballot  
exactly as desired, except for one detail - T=I or T=L instead of  
I<T<L; almost as close in Score with microscopic differences due to  
the added rating value.
.     With either method this desperate voter could do the new ballot  
effort.

Dave Ketchum
>
>
> 	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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110510/26a27c8e/attachment-0003.htm>