Confusing description of score voting (aka range voting)

[CLAY S]

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!"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/attachments/20080717/4d748a50/attachment.html