[EM] How to get ranked-choice preferrers to accept Score-Voting.

[Chris Benham]

Ranking can always be inferred from ratings if enough ratings slots are 
available to give each candidate
a different rating.

"Some people" like the idea of the Single Transferable Vote algorithm 
and others like the idea of always
electing the Condorcet winner.

Neither of these concepts have any use for ratings or "score" ballots.

I am a bit disconcerted by the concept of "negative ranks".

The method ⸘Ŭalabio‽ proposes seems to me to be very Borda-like (and 
therefore not good).

Chris Benham

On 4/03/2019 6:18 am, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
> 	⸘Howdy‽
>
> 	For some reason, some prefer ranked ballots over scored ballots.  I say we give to them what they want:
>
> I:
> 	"So you want to rank.  Well now, I can give to you ranking not just with positive values but negative ranks as well."
>
> Ranked Voter:
> 	“⸘I can express extreme displeasure without burying the evil candidate under zillions of donkey-votes‽
>
> I:
> 	“¡Yes!”
>
> Ranked Voter:
> 	“¿How?”
>
> I:
> 	“Let us suppose that you rank Thus:”
>
> Mary:
> 	“+1”
>
> Ed:
> 	“+2”
>
> Carl:
>
> 	“-2”
>
> Sylvester:
> 	“-1”
>
> 	“We count those as 1 over your rank:
>
> Mary:
> 	“1/+1”
>
> Ed:
> 	“1/+2”
>
> Carl:
>
> 	“1/-2”
>
> Sylvester:
> 	“1/-1”
>
> 	“For making counting easy, we use 2520, the least common multiple of all counting numbers unto 9, and multiply it by your score:
>
> Mary:
> 	“+2520”
>
> Ed:
> 	“+1260”
>
> Carl:
>
> 	“-1260”
>
> Sylvester:
> 	“-1520”
>
> 	"We simply sum the votes."
>
> 	“The full range of absolute values are thus:”
>
> 	2520
> 	1260
> 	0840
> 	0630
> 	0504
> 	0420
> 	0360
> 	0315
> 	0280
>
> 	¿What is your opinion about uniting score/rank-voting thus?
>
> 	¡Peace!
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com