Re: [EM] Majority Judgment v. RCIPE version 2 (Richard Lung)
To Richard Lung from Steve Bosworth:
However, since politics and voting are not a " purely mathematical problem" (see below), it seems to me that using Balinski's Majority Judgment voting method is a much more meaningful way to collect a "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?
Steve
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 06:05:19 +0100
From: Richard Lung voting@ukscientists.com
To: "Richard, the VoteFair guy" electionmethods@votefair.org
Cc: "election-methods@electorama.com"
election-methods@electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCIPE version 2
Message-ID: e46f8841-2f36-7df0-5799-c71817923e25@ukscientists.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Looking at election method as a purely mathematical problem, the
objection to existing voting method is that it lacks a complete scale of
measurement of candidate support, positive and negative. This is achievd
by making an exclusion count the polar opposite of an election count, on
the same continuum. The zero point in the middle is the zero surplus
votes of just elected candidates. Or alternatively the zero deficit
votes of just not unelected candidates.
Once youve got this bipolar (or indeed binomial) count youve got one
complete dimension, a basic standard of scientific measurement.
(It's possible to go onto more than one dimension, as used in natural
science.)
Richard Lung.
Thank you, Steve,
What I think is what others have already said, namely that a scale of category grades is a step back from an ordinal scale. On the four scales of measurement given by S S Stevens (in Science, in the 1940s) the classificatory or categorical scale is the least powerful or accurate. The ordinal scale is a step up in precision. (The interval and ratio scales come next.) The power of the ratio scale can replace majority counts with proportional counts (if done reasonably well as in Cambridge, Mass.)
Regards,
Richard Lung.
On 15 Aug 2021, at 7:25 pm, steve bosworth stevebosworth@hotmail.com wrote:
To Richard Lung from Steve Bosworth:
However, since politics and voting are not a " purely mathematical problem" (see below), it seems to me that using Balinski's Majority Judgment voting method is a much more meaningful way to collect a "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?
Steve
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 06:05:19 +0100
From: Richard Lung voting@ukscientists.com
To: "Richard, the VoteFair guy" electionmethods@votefair.org
Cc: "election-methods@electorama.com"
election-methods@electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] RCIPE version 2
Message-ID: e46f8841-2f36-7df0-5799-c71817923e25@ukscientists.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Looking at election method as a purely mathematical problem, the
objection to existing voting method is that it lacks a complete scale of
measurement of candidate support, positive and negative. This is achievd
by making an exclusion count the polar opposite of an election count, on
the same continuum. The zero point in the middle is the zero surplus
votes of just elected candidates. Or alternatively the zero deficit
votes of just not unelected candidates.
Once youve got this bipolar (or indeed binomial) count youve got one
complete dimension, a basic standard of scientific measurement.
(It's possible to go onto more than one dimension, as used in natural
science.)
Richard Lung.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
On 15.08.2021 20:59, Richard Lung wrote:
Thank you, Steve,
What I think is what others have already said, namely that a scale of
category grades is a step back from an ordinal scale. On the four scales
of measurement given by S S Stevens (in Science, in the 1940s) the
classificatory or categorical scale is the least powerful or accurate.
The ordinal scale is a step up in precision. (The interval and ratio
scales come next.) The power of the ratio scale can replace majority
counts with proportional counts (if done reasonably well as in
Cambridge, Mass.)
Regards,
Richard Lung.
The grades in MJ are equipped with an order (e.g. "Excellent" is better
than "Good"), so aren't MJ grades also ordinal?
-km
KM,
Yes, but it's like saying that math is founded on logic, so isn't logic mathematical?
The scales of measurement are a progression.
RL.
On 15 Aug 2021, at 8:39 pm, Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de wrote:
On 15.08.2021 20:59, Richard Lung wrote:
Thank you, Steve,
What I think is what others have already said, namely that a scale of
category grades is a step back from an ordinal scale. On the four scales
of measurement given by S S Stevens (in Science, in the 1940s) the
classificatory or categorical scale is the least powerful or accurate.
The ordinal scale is a step up in precision. (The interval and ratio
scales come next.) The power of the ratio scale can replace majority
counts with proportional counts (if done reasonably well as in
Cambridge, Mass.)
Regards,
Richard Lung.
The grades in MJ are equipped with an order (e.g. "Excellent" is better
than "Good"), so aren't MJ grades also ordinal?
-km