[EM] Election-Methods Digest, Vol 224, Issue 2

[steve bosworth]

FROM: Steve Bosworth

Thank you for your reply.

Would I be mistaken to I assumed that you and almost all other voters either intuitively or analytically conclude that different candidates have different levels of suitability for office? Aim I mistaken that you and we all initially express these judgments to ourselves using evaluative concepts we express using words that our ordinary languages provide us such as: perfect, ideal, very good, acceptable, poor, hopeless, unacceptable, etc.? In this context, I see the six words suggested by Balinski and Laraki (Majority Judgment) as just one set of such words with which we can most briefly and easily communicate our judgments about the candidates to others. Of course, we can also define a different number to stand for each such verbal grade if we wish.
However, what is the point when these words are already understood by ourselves and others and they can also be counted. Balinski's MJ winner is the candidate with the highest-median grade. EPR's winners are the candidates who have exclusively received one of the largest numbers of grades of at least Acceptable. For a seven-member city council elected at large by EPR, each of the elected members has exclusively received one of the seven-largest numbers of such votes.

Are these not informative results which are also defined by "enumerations?"

What do you think?
Respectfully,
Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230305/c196dbab/attachment-0001.htm>