--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Do You have an example of Eric's rule failing the participation criterion? I came up with something similar some time back but never found such an example.
Another voter shows up voting A=5, B=7 then:
Another voter shows up voting A=5, B=7 then:I meant A=5, B=6.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Or let voters assign a default score to every write-in they haven't explicitly scored?
> I, on the other hand, would keep strong_participation. I've never seen a
> compelling example where it's obvious that deferring to others is better
> than plain-sum. Should a candidate who gets a 10.0 average from 55% of the
> population win over someone who gets 5.0 average from 100% of the
> population? I guess it's an obvious yes to some people, but it's not clear
> to me.
--obvious yes to me.
Well, let's say you were trying to decide on some food.
Food A is an "amanita mushroom." Among those who ate it, 100% died
within 2 weeks.
Among those who did not eat it, i.e. the vast majority of USA population,
well, I would recommend they DEFER_TO_OTHERS,
namely those who did eat it, for the purpose of getting a better decision.
Food B is a McDonald's Big Mac with Giant Coke. Pretty unhealthy, but
it probably
won't kill you quickly. 100% of the population has tried it or at
least is familiar with it,
and they on average think it's a pretty bad food, say scoring it 3 out of 10.
More generally, look, if 50% of the population, or even merely 20%,
scores something, that's a high
reliability assessment of its average perceived worth. Accept it. You are
probably never going to get any better such assessment via anything you
ever do in your life.
By the way, in Canada, write-ins are forbidden.
So I guess I'm not happy about the whole idea of allowing write-ins in score voting elections. By the way, in Canada, write-ins are forbidden. I'd prefer if everybody was a write-in, or nobody was. But anyhow if both are allowed, then yes I would want quorum protection.
Suppose 90% of the voters scored a candidate and 10% abstained. His average score (among those that actually scored him) is 6.
Then you "fill in" the abstentions with 6 * 0.9 = 5.4.
So his final score is an average of 6 * 0.9 + 5.4 * 0.1 = 5.94
Example:
If a candidate has an average score of 9.0 and has been scored by 80% of voters, then the value of each of that candidate’s "No Opinions" is 9.0 x 80%, or 7.2.
Now, simply multiply the value of each "No Opinion" (in this case, 7.2) by the total number of "No Opinions" for that candidate to determine the total value of that candidate's "No Opinions".
Lastly, add the total value of that candidate's "No Opinions" to the candidate's base total score to produce a Final Total Score and then a Final Average Score (i.e., Final Total Score / Total # of Voters).