On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, David Artman wrote:

So one might have this as a ballot, then:
1) A
2) B, C
4) D, E, F, G
8) H
And the algorithm will handle it?

`Yup. It'd break down to A>B, A>C, A>D, A>E, A>F, A>G, A>H, B>D, B>E, B>F,
``B>G. B>H, C>D, C>E, C>F, C>G, C>H, D>H, E>H, F>H, and G>H, with no opinion
``on BvC, DvE, DvF, DvG, EvF, EvG, or FvG. And you can pump that right into
``the marginal vote table.
`

`I could certainly make it more clear that one can send in rankings like
``that, by merely stating something like "you may rank games as tied for a
``particular rank, in which case the next rank is lowered for each extra
``game in the tie (e.g. if you rank three games as tied for first, the
``next game you list is ranked fourth)."
`

`That wording is a bit confusing, but sure (and the numerical ordering
``doesn't really matter, just the relative ordering, so it doesn't matter
``what number you put next to each group of tied candidates.) (Also,
``allowing people to vote more tied contests into their ballot does increase
``the chance of a tied final result, if that is a concern.)
`

(Really, you could think of your ballot as an 8x8 grid, and you can put
either a + or a - in each square, or leave it blank

I could also easily provide such a ballot

`Oh, no; listing them in ranked order (even allowing ties) is much, much
``easier. But from a conceptual standpoint, the two are equivalent. (And
``it'd be only n*(n-1)/2, since the +s and -s have to be matched and
``candidates don't compete against themselves.)
`

`Should the judging period be longer, perhaps adjusted for the number of
``games submitted?
`

That's a good idea.
--
Dale Sheldon
dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx