[EM] Nontechnical words for cardinal and ordinal categories?

[Michael Ossipoff]

Referring to the posting quoted below, That negative connotation of
"rank" hadn't occurred to me, but of course you have a point: "You say
that's a rank voting system? You're damn right it's rank!"  :-)

Seriously, though, I think everyone knows what a ranking is, and the
above problem is avoided if you call it a "ranking" voting system
instead of a "rank" voting system.

"Ranking" is an already-available term with the right specific
meaning. "Comparative" is unnecessarily general.

So is "evaluative". For one thing, things can be evaluated _comparatively_

I don't think that "Range" is specific enough. "Score" is a little
better, but people are used to scores other than ones that they
themselves assign.

I'm sorry to be a spoil-sport, but what's wrong with the
already-familiar terms that already have the intended meaning?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call ranking methods ranking methods. Or, yes, rank methods.

Call points systems points systems. Or points rating systems. Or
rating systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Points systems include Plurality, Approval, and what we've been
calling "Score" or "Range".

All three of those are points systems, rating systems, points rating systems.

"Score" or "Range" therefore needs a name of its own. I suppose that
"Score" or "Range" could be specifically defined as a points system
that has more than two ratings levels. But that isn't explicit in the
name. And "score method" should rightfully be synonymous with "a
points system".

"Range" isn't descriptive at all.

So what's left, as a name for what we've been calling "Score" or "Range"?

Maybe the first question should be: "Is there a need for a special
name for points systems with more than two rating levels?

Why not just say, "The 0-10 points system" or "The 0-100 points
system", or "The 0-99 points system"?

But if a name is needed for points systems with more than two rating
levels, then maybe "Supradual-rating points system"?, or something
with that meaning. Maybe a more colloquial and familiar way of forming
such a word can be found. Doesn't sound very satisfactory, does it.

But maybe an explicit word like supradual-rating points system can be
found, one that sounds more usable.

But right now, my best suggestion would be to not try to have a word
with that meaning, and to just say 0-10 points, or 0-100 ratings, etc.

"Approval" is a good name for Approval. But,when proposing Approval,
it should always be made clear that Approval is a 0-1 points rating
system like Plurality, but merely without Plurality's rule that takes
away voter-freedom, requiring the falsification of the ballot with a
lot of 0 ratings ordered by the system and not chosen by the voter.
You, and only you should be the one to choose which candidates rate a
0 and which ones rate a 1.

Mike Ossipoff


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's been a recent discussion on the mailing list for the Election
> Science Foundation (the organization which promotes range and approval
> voting) about what to call the category of cardinal voting systems.
> "Cardinal" itself is too technical, and doesn't suggest any real meaning to
> a nonmathematician. Various options were considered, but the options with
> the most support are "graded voting", "grade voting", or "evaluative
> voting". These would contrast with "ranked voting", "rank voting", or
> "comparative voting" for ordinal systems.

>
> Personally, I favor "Evaluative" / "Comparative". "grade" and "rank" both
> have many different possible meanings (some of which are confusingly
> synonymous, or discouragingly negative-valence), and "grade" is also used
> differently between the US and UK. "Evaluative" and "comparative" are
> immediately understandable, as the refer to how you have to think in order
> to vote, not just the marks you make on the paper. They translate well to
> Spanish, French, or other Romance languages. They are generally
> positive-valence words. On the down side, they have a lot of syllables; but
> on the whole, I think they're the best words.
>
> But of course terminology only works if it's shared. So what do other people
> here think about this?
>
> Jameson
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>