<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>Yet another version of this "Approval Strong Sincere Defense, Range"</DIV>
<DIV>method occurs to me: uses ratings ballots with more available slots than<BR>there are candidates and on each ballot interpret the highest empty slot</DIV>
<DIV>as the approval threshold.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>This is simpler than my previous "automatic" version which on each ballot</DIV>
<DIV>interpreted rating above mean as approval, but can still use the same type</DIV>
<DIV>of ballot as highish-resolution Range/Score/CR.<BR><BR>Chris Benham</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chris Benham wrote:<BR>><I>I have an idea for a FBC complying method that I think is clearly<BR></I>><I>better than the version of "Range Voting" (aka Average Rating or<BR></I>><I>Cardinal Ratings) defined and promoted by CRV.<BR></I>><I><BR></I>><I> <A href="http://rangevoting.org/"><FONT color=#0000ff>http://rangevoting.org/</FONT></A><BR></I>><I> <BR></I>><I>I suggest that voters use multi-slot ratings ballots that have the bottom<BR></I>><I>slots (at least 2 and not more than half) clearly labelled as expressing<BR></I>><I>"disapproval" and all others as expressing "Approval". The default<BR></I>><I>rating is the bottom-most.<BR></I>><I> <BR></I>><I>Compute each candidate X's Approval score and also "Approval<BR></I>><I>Opposition" score (the approval score of the most approved candidate<BR></I>><I>on ballots that
don't approve X).<BR></I>><I> <BR></I>><I>All candidates whose approval score is exceeded by their approval<BR></I>><I>opposition (AO) score are disqualified. Elect the undisqualified<BR></I>><I>candidate that is highest ordered by Average Rating.<BR></I>><I> <BR></I>><I>I suggest many fewer slots than 99 and no "no opinion" option, so I<BR></I>><I>think the resulting method is not more complex for voters.<BR></I><BR><BR>Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote (Monday, 29 September, 2008):<BR>"One way of making it less complex would be to have a cardinal ratings <BR>(Range) ballot with both positive and negative integers. The voter rates <BR>every candidate, and those candidates that get below zero points are <BR>considered disapproved, while those that get above zero are considered <BR>approved. This idea doesn't specify where those rated at zero (or those <BR>not rated at all) would
appear."<BR><BR><BR>CB: Thinking about this method idea more, as a practical proposition either<BR>a very simple way of handling the zero on a scale that includes negative and<BR>positive numbers or not having a zero would be better.<BR><BR>One tidy relatively simple version would use a " A B C | D E F" graded ballot<BR>with ABC shown on the ballot as taken to signify "approved" or "acceptable"<BR>and DEF not. <BR><BR>This could perhaps be promoted as "Graded Approval". My technical name<BR>for the method is I suppose "Approval Strong Minimal Defense, CR".<BR><BR>Chris Benham<BR><BR></DIV></div><br>
<hr size=1> Make the switch to the world's best email.
<a href="http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/au/mail/default/*http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail">Get Yahoo!7 Mail</a>.</body></html>