[EM] Fw: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44 (subjective meaning of grades)

[Richard Lung]

On 06/05/2022 12:07, Richard Lung wrote:
>
>
> Thank you, Steve,
>
>
> I don't need to deny. Categories impose meaning, the voters may not 
> share, and an alternative 6 orders of choice are simply not enough. 
> That is problem enough.
>
> As a rule, claims to 100% PR impose rather than elicit it.
>
> I have said that FAB STV uses all (100%) of the preferential 
> information, for a complete dimension of choice. Since elections must 
> exclude, as well as elect, candidates, binomial STV also has a 
> rational exclusion count. And rationally quota counting abstentions 
> measures how much voters actually choose or reject candidates.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Lung.
>
>
>
>
> On 06/05/2022 06:56, steve bosworth wrote:
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 4, 2022 11:55 PM
>> *To:* Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44 
>> (subjective meaning of grades)
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your reply.
>>
>> 1) Please correct me if I’m mistaken but I don’t think you want to 
>> deny that the grades Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, 
>> and Reject are nominal, nor that they can easily be translated into 
>> an ordinal scale of 6.
>>
>> 2) Nor, do you deny that the six numbers that might be used by 
>> themselves would have much less meaning than these verbal grades on 
>> their own to express each citizen’s subjective evaluation of the 
>> candidates. This is not to deny that such numbers could acquire 
>> something like this clarity if and when they are explicitly defined 
>> with regard to these words, or otherwise verbally defined. Similarly, 
>> they could acquire ever clearer meanings as a result of being used 
>> for many years in a particular school or university, like letter 
>> grades from A to F are often used now.
>>
>> 3) It is in this subjective sense that the use of verbal grades seem 
>> to be socially more meaningful and informative than any pure numbers. 
>> Do you agree?
>>
>> 4) In the light of the green print on page 3 of the attachment 
>> previously sent, do you see any problem with the rules by which 
>> evaluative proportional representation (EPR) adds and subtracts all 
>> the grades given by all citizens to all candidates in order to 
>> determine which seven candidates are elected to the city council?
>>
>> 5) If your FAB STV method were used instead, could it match EPR’s 
>> claim of such a council proportionally representing 100% of all the 
>> votes cast?
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Richard Lung <voting at ukscientists.com>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 4, 2022 11:31 AM
>> *To:* steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com>
>> *Cc:* election-methods at lists.electorama.com 
>> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44
>> Steve,
>>
>> Thanks for reply. A basic objection to graded classes is that it 
>> takes ordered numbers to complete the transition from the 
>> classificatory scale to the ordinal scale, in S S Stevens widely 
>> accepted scales of measurement, in the sciences: nominal, ordinal, 
>> interval, ratio scales. The vote should be an ordered number vote. 
>> (Its classificatory scale is one person one vote.) The count is an 
>> interval scale and a ratio scale count.
>>  The ordinal scale founds, in the sciences, sufficiently advanced, an 
>> orderly transition to the two most powerful scales.
>> The stripped-down version of FAB STV, is simple enough to enable a 
>> Binomial STV hand count, and can elect single members, as mentioned, 
>> using a rational exclusion count, as well as a rational election count.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Richard Lung.
>>
>> On 3 May 2022, at 9:30 pm, steve bosworth <stevebosworth at hotmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> *
>>
>> Re: Re: [EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 213, Issue 44
>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Sorry, with you initially starting out with President Macron, I 
>> mistakenly responded to your argument for FAB STV as if you were 
>> proposing it as a single-winner method. However, your most recent 
>> post copied below now makes it clear that you instead see it as a 
>> superior multi-winner method. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> In this light, I would like to ask you to compare FAB STV with the 
>> multi-winner method my co-authors and I call evaluative proportional 
>> representation (EPR – 
>> /https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/ 
>> <https://www.jpolrisk.com/legislatures-elected-by-evaluative-proportional-representation-epr-an-algorithm-v3/>/). 
>> We see EPR as an improved version of ordinary STV that follows MJ by 
>> inviting citizens to rank candidates more informatively instead by 
>> grading them – grading their suitability for office as either 
>> Excellent, Very Good, Good, Acceptable, Poor, or Reject. We have also 
>> updated theabove 2020article in a /Paper/that I would be happy to 
>> email to anyEM reader upon request (stevebosworth at hotmail.com).
>>
>>
>> I see EPR as also fully satisfying your desire toinclude the 
>> judgments of the whole electorate in the count to the fullest extent 
>> possible to avoid *any … minimally democratic ... binary choice* as 
>> you put it.
>>
>>
>> With regard to FAB STV,I am happy to assume that itprovides this 
>> benefit much more than plurality and ordinary STV does. At the same 
>> time, pleasetell me how the results of an FAB STV election at-large 
>> of a seven-member city council wouldcompare with the following 
>> results that an EPR election guarantees: every citizens’ ballot 
>> equally adds to the voting power (weighted vote) in the council of 
>> the elected candidate each sees as likely to represent their hopes 
>> and concerns most accurately. This winner will have received either 
>> this citizen’s highest grade, remaining highest grade, or proxy vote. 
>> Consequently, every citizen’s vote cast isequally represented in the 
>> council quantitatively. Exactly how EPR offers these democratic 
>> benefits is described in the above mentioned available /Paper/.
>>
>>
>> You (Richard)freely warn readersthat most of them may notbe able 
>> fully to understand the complex steps by which an FAB STV election 
>> would be counted. In contrast, my co-authors and I believe thatanyone 
>> who can count, add, and subtract whole numberswill be able to 
>> understand exactly how an EPR election is counted.
>>
>>
>> I look forward to our dialogues.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> *
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20220506/e4ffa6f0/attachment-0001.html>