Best posts made by Essenzia

@Keith
Given these 3 types of ratings (assuming they are the ratings of the 2 frontrunners, after eliminating all the others):
[0,1] - [2,3] - [4,5]
STLR normalizes them like this:
[0,5] - [3.33,5] - [4,5]
Baldwin normalizes them like this:
[0,5] - [0,5] - [0,5]

For me, STLR uses better normalization but I don't think it's the best.
If a vote like this: [4,5] remain the same in the clash between the two finalists, the voter from the start will be encouraged to downplay the rating of the worst candidate of the 2 (i.e., to vote like this from the start [0,5] ).
I prefer this normalization in clash between two finalists:

• if you have a couple [0,0] or [5,5] the vote is irrelevant.
• if one of the two candidates has a score of 5, the other is put at 0.
• if one of the two candidates has a score of 0, the other is put at 5.
• if both candidates have intermediate scores, then STLR normalization applies.

For simplicity, I call START the STAR that uses this normalization.
In this way, at the beginning the voter:

• first assigns 5 to his most favorite candidates and 0 to the most hated ones.
• then he can feel freer in assigning intermediate scores.

Such normalization is proposed indirectly in Tragni's method, although in that context it is used to make comparisons between couples.

@Jack-Waugh
Exactly like that.

I hypothesize that if a voter assigns [best] to a candidate, then he would definitely want the opponent to be at 0 points (respectively, if he assigns [worst] he wants the opponent to be at 5).
If he uses intermediate scores instead, he can agree to leave them as they are.

An STLR-style normalization could be done on the intermediate scores, eg: [1,2] becomes [2.5,5] but I think it would complicate the procedure too much.