<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Aug 5, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/5 Dave Ketchum <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davek@clarityconnect.com">davek@clarityconnect.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 ..8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im"><div>On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:22 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">2011/8/5 Dave Ketchum <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davek@clarityconnect.com" target="_blank">davek@clarityconnect.com</a>></span><br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Brought out for special thought:</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> <div>rating is easier than ranking. You can express this computationally, by saying that ranking requires O(nē) pairwise comparisons of candidates (or perhaps for some autistic savants who heap-sort in their head, O[n log(n)]), while rating requires O(n) comparisons of candidates against an absolute scale. You can express it empirically; this has been confirmed by ballot spoilage rates, speed, and self-report in study after study. </div> </blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span></div></blockquote></blockquote></div><div>This somehow does not fit as to rating vs ranking. I look at A and B, doing comparisons as needed, and assign each a value to use:</div> <div>. For ranking the values can show which exist: A<B, A=B, or A>B, and can be used as is unless they need to be converted to whatever format may be acceptable. </div></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.</div> </div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>The ballot counter, seeing A and B each ranked, is going to step a count for A<B or A>B if A is less than B or A is greater than B - which difference exists matters but the magnitude of the differences is of no interest.</div> <div><br></div><div><font color="#888888">Dave Ketchum</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm sorry. You're talking about during the counting phase. I was talking about the algorithm going on in the voter's head. Assuming that "how good is candidate X on this absolute scale?" is an atomic operation, and "is X better than Y" is another one.</div> <div> </div></div></blockquote>"good" and "better" are not clear to me. "How important" fits better as the reason the voter is assigning a higher rank. <br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div class="im"><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>. For rating the values need to be scaled.</div></div></blockquote> <div><br></div><div>There is no need to scale rating values for MJ. In fact, it is not the intention. A vote of "Nader=Poor, Gore=Good, Bush=Fair" is perfectly valid and probably fully strategic even on a ballot which includes "Unacceptable, Poor, Fair, Good, Excellent".</div> <div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>Thus what needs doing is a trivial bit of extra effort for rating. The comparison effort was shared.</div> <div><br></div><div>"Ballot spoilage rates" also puzzle. Where can I find what magic lets non-Condorcet have less such than Condorcet, for I do not believe such magic exists, unless Condorcet is given undeserved problems.</div> </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, I was thinking of strict ranking when I wrote that part.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span></span></div></blockquote></blockquote><span>On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</span></div> </div> </blockquote></div></blockquote></div>...</div></div></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>