Fwd: Confusing description of score voting (aka range voting)

(resending this since i'm not sure it originally went through - i didn't receive it.)

I just saw this problem: http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/i-voted-fesco2008/


I'll
bet that would not have happened if the instructions were to rate the
candidates from 0-10.* The point about giving as many score options as
candidates is confusing, and of trivial value.* Even a 1-5 rating would
be more than sufficiently expressive.* People just have to accept that
with score voting, you can't necessarily specify every ranking between
the candidates.* The Bayesian regret still comes out great.

Please see => http://rangevoting.org/Why99.html

Also, we at the Center for Range Voting would like to analyze anonymous ballot data if possible, as part of our ongoing scientific research into voting methods.* These elections are particularly significant because they were contentious.* We can't get score voting implemented in real government elections if we can't start by citing real world examples of its use in contentious elections, and so we'd greatly appreciate access to that data.



Regards,
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA

--
clay shentrup
phone: 206.801.0484

"Iraq? No, YOU rock!"



--
clay shentrup
phone: 206.801.0484

"Iraq? No, YOU rock!"

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board