Trusting that voters add their numbers and end up with the right total points, I think that sounds like a tremendously sensible system. Benjamin On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Jeff Zeitlin <icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It's been pointed out how a small number of ballots in the current > scheme can cause wide variance in the final outcomes of the competition. > Elsewhere, I've encountered a system that MAY have the happy side effect > of reducing the chances of that happening. > > Currently, the ballot requires a straight ranking: I like Zendo better > than Ice Towers better than Martian Backgammon better than Spicklehead. > It doesn't take into account that a particular voter may feel that Zendo > is only marginally better in his opinion than Ice Towers, but both are > WAY COOL, and that Spicklehead is WAY below Martian Backgammon. His > vote is completely countered by someone who feels "Eh" about all four > games, and rates them Spicklehead, Martian Backgammon, Ice Towers, > Zendo. > > The system I encountered says "You have x points. Allocate them as you > see fit among the choices." X is a function of how many choices there > are on the ballot - the particular example I encountered said "two > points per choice on the ballot". > > Suppose the IGDC says 'ten points per choice on the ballot'. In the > example above, each voter can share 40 points among the four choices. > So, the first voter goes with Z=20, I=12, M=6, S=2. The second voter > goes with S=12, M=11, I=9, Z=8. > > The two votes no longer counter each other; the strong feelings of the > first voter "weigh more heavily" than the generally neutral feelings of > the second. > > Does this have possibilities? > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse >