I've had some luck using an exponential scale to accumulate preference
rankings.
If voters rank their issues 1,2,3,...,
N (and leave off any
issues on which they are neutral),
each vote of rank
R for an issue can contribute
M times
as much support as a vote of rank
R+1.
Let
Rij be the ranking voter
j gives to
issue
i.
The accumulated score for the
ith issue is
SUMj(
M^(
M+1-
Rij) )
Values of M near
ln(#voters) seem to work well (I just used M=6
for a survey on which I got around 200 responses).
If tally votes on a spreadsheet be sure to force the blank cells to
contribute a zero score, not M^(M+1) !
Everyone's first choice carries the same weight.
Everyone's trailing interests have diminishing, marginal impact.
Havlicek John-R8AAAU wrote:
Hi Folks:
I have some concern about the weighted average scheme for scoring the
results of everyone's prioritizations.
I had hoped that we would each be given a mass to distribute (like the
lucky bucks doled out by Karen Pieper in the requirements gathering
meeting) and that we could each distribute our mass as we saw fit.
With the current scheme, if I have high priority on only a few items,
there is no way for me to focus my mass on those items. Essentially, my
input no longer counts.
Can the mechanism be amended in some way to avoid this prejudice against
persons with small numbers of items of key interest?
Best regards,
John Havlicek
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue May 4 13:24:40 2010