I hate Lickert scales.

On 13-04-01 12:43, Rosalyn Metz wrote:
> well those three points become useful in the event of a tie.  maybe i see
> that its a tie, and change my mind, remove the 1 point from austin and give
> it to raleigh.  now raleigh has 2 more points than austin and you've
> managed to put raleigh over the top.
> 
> not that i've ever done that before........
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> PATCHES WELCOME.
>>
>> -Ross.
>>
>> On Apr 1, 2013, at 12:01 PM, "David J. Fiander" <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So, I just voted for the Code4Lib 2014 location. There are two possible
>>> venues, and I was given three points to apportion however I wish.
>>>
>>> While having multiple votes, to spread around at will, makes a lot of
>>> sense, shouldn't the number of votes each elector is granted be limited
>>> to max(3, count(options)-1)? That is, when voting for a binary, I get
>>> one vote, when voting on a choice of three items, I get two votes, and
>>> for anything more than three choices, I get three votes?
>>>
>>> I mean, realistically, one could give one vote to Austin and two votes
>>> to Raleigh, but why bother?
>>