<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:14pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<br>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span class="PlainText">To Richard Lung from Steve Bosworth:</span>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">However, since politics and voting are not a "<font size="2"><span> purely mathematical problem</span></font>" (see below), it seems to me that using Balinski's Majority Judgment voting method is a much more meaningful way to collect
a "<font size="2"><span>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?</span></font></div>
<span class="PlainText"><font size="2"><span>Steve</span></font></span></span></font><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText">Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 06:05:19 +0100<br>
From: Richard Lung <voting@ukscientists.com><br>
To: "Richard, the VoteFair guy" <electionmethods@votefair.org><br>
Cc: "election-methods@electorama.com"<br>
<election-methods@electorama.com><br>
Subject: Re: [EM] RCIPE version 2<br>
Message-ID: <e46f8841-2f36-7df0-5799-c71817923e25@ukscientists.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
<br>
<br>
Looking at election method as a purely mathematical problem, the <br>
objection to existing voting method is that it lacks a complete scale of <br>
measurement of candidate support, positive and negative. This is achievd <br>
by making an exclusion count the polar opposite of an election count, on <br>
the same continuum. The zero point in the middle is the zero surplus <br>
votes of just elected candidates. Or alternatively the zero deficit <br>
votes of just not unelected candidates.<br>
Once youve got this bipolar (or indeed binomial) count youve got one <br>
complete dimension, a basic standard of scientific measurement.<br>
(It's possible to go onto more than one dimension, as used in natural <br>
science.)<br>
<br>
Richard Lung.</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText"><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>