Anonymous user
Cardinal-weighted pairwise comparison: Difference between revisions
Cardinal-weighted pairwise comparison (view source)
Revision as of 08:33, 16 June 2005
, 19 years agoadd ballot types section
imported>James Green-Armytage No edit summary |
imported>James Green-Armytage (add ballot types section) |
||
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]].
=== 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 ==
| |||