[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 103, Issue 1

[Andy Jennings]

Here's the way I would explain the CMJ tiebreaker in your example:

"This candidate's median is a C, and to get up to the median vote uses
43.1% of those C votes."

What this means:

This candidate would be beaten by a candidate with a median of A or B or a
candidate with a median of C where the median used up more than 43.1% of
the C votes.  This candidate would beat any candidate with a median of D
and any candidate with a median of C where the median used up less than
43.1% of the C votes.

How it is calculated:

There are 578,536 voters, with half of that being 289,268.  The bottom half
of the votes, then, are the 19,663 F votes, plus the 81,286 E votes, plus
the 121,121 D votes, plus 67,198 of the 155,781 C votes.

 67198/155781 is 0.431.

~ Andy



On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> Good Morning, Jameson
>
> re:  "Each voter grades each candidate from A to F. Voters may
>       give as many or as few of each grade as they want. Then
>       each candidate's grades are put in order and the similar
>       grades are evenly spread out. For instance, grades of B
>       (3.0) are evenly spread over a continuum between B+ (3.5)
>       and B- (2.5)."
>
> It is not clear how or why grades should be adjusted.  If a voter gives a
> candidate a grade of B, what is the justification for changing it to B+ or
> B-?  More to the point, what is the benefit?  If a candidate gets:
>
> Grade   Voters
>   A     26,781
>   B    173,904
>   C    155,781
>   D    121,121
>   E     81,286
>   F     19,663
>
> can not the candidate's grade be calculated without adjusting the value of
> any of the voters' wishes?
>
> Fred
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130102/7794022f/attachment-0003.htm>