[EM] Majority-Judgement using adjectives versus alphabeticalscales versus numerical ranges.
jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Thu Dec 6 16:09:04 PST 2012
Most of this discussion, if it relates to public elections, ignores the electors. It takes no account of the real levels of literacy and numeracy. In the UK approximately 25% of adults have a literacy level below that expected for an adult. I do not think the overall situation in the USA will be any better.
I do not think the majority of electors would be happy with negative numbers. Opinion polling organisations tend to use scales graded 1 - 5 or 1 - 10.
We do have experience in Scotland of voters ranking candidates in order of preference in STV-PR elections for our 32 local government councils. Details of the numbers of preferences marked, by ward and by ballot box (= Polling Station = part of a Polling District), are available on the 32 websites of the councils. The full ballot data (preference profiles) for all 353 wards will be available early in 2013.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On
> Behalf Of Juho Laatu
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 11:23 PM
> To: EM list
> Subject: Re: [EM] Majority-Judgement using adjectives versus
> alphabeticalscales versus numerical ranges.
> On 6.12.2012, at 23.54, ⸘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?
> Very understandable. If some values should be considered
> unacceptable, then that category should be pointed out.
> > 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?
> Each country could use those values (letters or numbers) that
> people are most familiar with. If you want to have universal
> coverage, then numbers are good since they heve the same
> meaning and people are familiar with them everyehere.
> It depends on the type of election if "-n to +n" is better
> than "0 to n" or "1 to n". If there is an "approval cutoff"
> or "unacceptable values", then the scale can be from "a to b
> to c" (b can be 0 or a positive number). Since most number
> systems are based on 10, ranges that are in one way or
> another based on that number are good.
> I guess low values are usually worse than high values, but
> one could also use ranking style values where "1" is the best value.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5439 - Release Date: 12/05/12
More information about the Election-Methods