[EM] [CES #4429] Looking at Condorcet

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 02/02/2012 05:28 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> I honestly think that honest rating is easier than honest ranking.
> (How's that for honesty per square word?) MJ is the only system which
> allows honest rating to be full-strength in practice; and SODA is the
> only good system which allows anything easier. (And no, approval is not
> easier than MJ, because approval forces some amount of strategizing.)

As a contrast, to me, ranking is easier than rating. When I'm set to 
rate, I tend to think about whether I rated the candidate just right or 
not - did I rate him too high, too low? - but if I rank, I don't have to 
care about that. All I have to do is get a general idea of the order of 
preference, and then ask "do I like X better than Y or vice versa".

Maybe I'm uncommon, but I thought I would say it. I've heard the claim 
that rating is easier than ranking before, and maybe it still is -- to 
most people.

I'll also note that many of the ranked voting methods can be also be 
applied even if the only information you can get from the voters or  the 
system is "is X better than Y" for pairs {X,Y}. Thus, these can be used 
to determine winners in actual one-on-one contests (e.g. chess matches, 
kittenwar-style preference elicitation) where it would be hard to use 
ratings.