# [EM] ¿Why do some absolutely hate ScoreVoting and insist on Ranked Ballots?

⸘Ŭalabio‽ walabio at macosx.com
Fri Apr 13 14:46:01 PDT 2012

```	2012-04-13T:17:09Z, “Robert Bristow-Johnson” <Rbj at Audioimagination.Com>:

> 	On 4/13/12 3:11 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:

>> 	I have had interactions with people on this list hating rated ballots.  I have a question for them:

> 	and my question for you is: how high should a voter rate his/her contingency choice?

As high or low as the voter likes.

> 	he/she does not want to harm their favorite candidate (that would indicate rating the 2nd choice with 0) and he/she does not want to help their last choice (which would suggest ranking the 2nd choice higher).

You have a legitimate point.  That is why I favor multiple rounds.  I even wrote a post about this just a few days ago called

“A procedure for handling large numbers of candidates using scorevoting with primaries and runoffs.”
2012-04-10T01:57:49Z

If you do not have the post, I shall forward you a copy, at your request.

>> 	If the ballot would allow both ratings and rankings, ¿would that be acceptable?

> 	sounds simple.  i'm sure the electorate or the legislature will go for that.

I like sarcasm.

> 	it's also important to have a consistent rule that applies to every voter.  while every voter has a choice of ranking vs. rating, it's not particularly consistent.  it's consistent regarding the *choice* but the actually quantitative measure is not

I included a table as an example about how to quantify it.  The algorithm is thus:

1 divided by ranking.  Take the resulting fraction and multiply it by 99.  Round the result to the nearest integer.

>> 	The ballot could allow ranking or ratings with equal rankings or ratings allowed.  The rankings would then be converted to ratings like thus:

>> -1:
>> 	-99

>> -2:
>> 	-50

>> -3:
>> 	-33

>> -4:
>> 	-25

>> -5:
>> 	-20

>> -6:
>> 	-17

>> -7:
>> 	-14

>> -8:
>> 	-12

>> -9:
>> 	-11

>> 0:
>> 	00

>> +9:
>> 	+11

>> +8:
>> 	+12

>> +7:
>> 	+14

>> +6:
>> 	+17

>> +5:
>> 	+20

>> +4:
>> 	+25

>> +3:
>> 	+33

>> +2:
>> 	+50

>> +1:
>> 	+99

>> 	¿Would this be acceptable?

> 	as acceptable as Borda.

The thing is that it is not Borda.

> 	you think that Borda count is a good idea?

In Borda, the second-placed candidate gets n-1 points of the first-placed candidate.  That means that in polarized elections with much burial, the lack-lusters who get placed second for burying the competition can get more points than the serious candidates.  In Borda, one can also win by running a clone-army for the same reason.

In this system, the second-placed candidate only gets half the votes of the first-placed candidate.  It is more like The Oklahoma primary electoral system, but differs in that one can vote against candidates in addition to voting for candidates and can equally rank.

> 	it's just a mapping and is, whatever you call it, is a Score ballot.

Yes, but those insisting on ranking can rank.  That should make them happy.

```