Cardinal-weighted pairwise comparison: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>James Green-Armytage No edit summary |
imported>James Green-Armytage (add ballot types section) |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The name "cardinal pairwise" also implies that a Smith-efficient, defeat-dropping base method will be used, for example [[beatpath]], [[ranked pairs]], or [[river]]. |
The name "cardinal pairwise" also implies that a Smith-efficient, defeat-dropping base method will be used, for example [[beatpath]], [[ranked pairs]], or [[river]]. |
||
=== Ballot types === |
|||
One way to ballot for CWP is to have a separate ordinal and cardinal ballot, and to require that if a voter gives candidate R a higher rating than candidate S, then that voter must also give candidate R a higher ranking than candidate S. |
|||
A simpler way to ballot for CWP is to use only a cardinal ballot, and to derive the ordinal information from the cardinal information. The only disadvantage of this is that it creates an additional [[tactical voting|compromising-compression]] incentive not found in the first version. However, this additional incentive should be extremely minor if the scale is sufficiently fine. |
|||
For example, assume that the scale consists of integers from 0 to 100. If my sincere preferences are J>K>L, and I want to make the J>K defeat as weak as possible while making the K>L defeat as strong as possible, I can vote J:100, K:99, L:0. There is only a very small temptation to vote J: 100, K:100, L:0. This temptation can be reduced even further by allowing decimal ratings, e.g. J:100, K:99.99, L:0. |
|||
== Approval-weighted pairwise == |
== Approval-weighted pairwise == |