[EM] Majority-Judgement using adjectives versus alphabetical scales versus numerical ranges.

[Richard Fobes]

On 12/6/2012 1:54 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
 > ¿Why not just use the ranges 0 to 9 or negative -9 to positive +9 
instead?


I am from the U.S. and don't like the idea of using A through F for 
voting.  Those letters have a different meaning in my mind.  For 
example, is "C" "average for a politician" or "average for a desired 
leader"?  And is grade inflation involved?

I like 0 to 10.  Or how about +10 to -10?  Or even better, +5 to -5?

+5
+4
+3
+2
+1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5

Just expressing my opinion, since you asked.

Richard Fobes



On 12/6/2012 1:54 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> 	¡Hello!
>
> 	¿How fare you?
>
> 	Yesterday, I noted that Majority-Judgements does not work if we have too many adjectives because we have only so many adjectives and voters might confuse adjectives too close in meaning..  ¿Would an alphabetical scale be acceptable?:
>
> 	In the United States of America, we grade students using letters:
>
> 	A+
> 	A
> 	A-
> 	B+
> 	B
> 	B-
> 	C+
> 	C
> 	C-
> 	D+
> 	D
> 	D-
> 	F+
> 	F
> 	F-
>
> 	I have 2 questions grading candidates on this scale.  1 question is for people not in the United States of America.  The other question is for everyone:
>
> 	People outside the United States of America:
>
> 	¿Do you Understand this Scale?
>
> 	For everyone:
>
> 	¿Is this scale acceptable to you?
>
> 	Followup question:
>
> 	If this scale is not acceptable to you, ¿why is it not acceptable to you?
>
> 	With 15 grades, this scale is not very different from the numerical ranges of 0 to 9 or negative -9 to positive +9.  This raises the question:
>
> 	¿Why not just use the ranges 0 to 9 or negative -9 to positive +9 instead?
>
> 	¡Peace!
>