[EM] Majority Judgment v. RCIPE version 2 (Richard Lung)

[Richard Lung]

Thank you, Steve, 
What I think is what others have already said, namely that a scale of category grades is a step back from an ordinal scale. On the four scales of measurement given by S S Stevens (in Science, in the 1940s) the classificatory or categorical scale is the least powerful or accurate. The ordinal scale is a step up in precision. (The interval and ratio scales come next.) The power of the ratio scale  can replace majority counts with proportional counts (if done reasonably well as in Cambridge, Mass.)
Regards,
Richard Lung.


On 15 Aug 2021, at 7:25 pm, steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com> wrote:



   

To Richard Lung from Steve Bosworth:

However, since politics and voting are not a " purely mathematical problem" (see below), it seems to me that using Balinski's Majority Judgment voting method is a much more meaningful way to collect a "complete scale of [evaluative] measurement of candidate support, positive and negative". In an MJ post-election report, we see that every candidate received the same number of evaluations, but a different set of regarding each voter's judgment of the suitability for office of each candidate: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. The winner is the one who has the highest median grade. If there is a tie, the winner is the candidate who alone continues to have the highest median grade at the end of repeatedly removing the current median grade from each of the tied candidates. What do you think?
Steve

Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 06:05:19 +0100
From: Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
To: "Richard, the VoteFair guy" <electionmethods at votefair.org>
Cc: "election-methods at electorama.com"
        <election-methods at electorama.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] RCIPE version 2
Message-ID: <e46f8841-2f36-7df0-5799-c71817923e25 at ukscientists.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"


Looking at election method as a purely mathematical problem, the 
objection to existing voting method is that it lacks a complete scale of 
measurement of candidate support, positive and negative. This is achievd 
by making an exclusion count the polar opposite of an election count, on 
the same continuum. The zero point in the middle is the zero surplus 
votes of just elected candidates. Or alternatively the zero deficit 
votes of just not unelected candidates.
Once youve got this bipolar (or indeed binomial) count youve got one 
complete dimension, a basic standard of scientific measurement.
(It's possible to go onto more than one dimension, as used in natural 
science.)

Richard Lung.




----
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20210815/dfdc8b20/attachment.html>