# Scaling vs. capping for hand-counting Sequentially Spent Score and whether that makes it worse than other cardinal PR methods

Scaling seems to be too much more difficult than capping for hand-counting SSS ballots. The formula seems to be (score for non-winner candidate/max score) - (score for non-winner candidate/max score) * (score for winner/max score) * (surplus factor). The surplus factor is the Hare Quota divided by the candidate’s score if they exceeded the quota. So if you give a non-winner candidate a 7/10 and gave the winner a 7/10, and the winner won with twice the quota, your score for that non-winner candidate would be 7/10 - (7/10 * 7/10 * 0.5) = 0.21 or 2.1/10. You’d have to use this formula for each score for non-winner candidates on the ballot. Whereas with capping, you can maintain a separate “points remaining on ballot” variable that’s calculated once per round and just cut any exceeding scores on the ballot down to that. Is this enough to make an allocated cardinal method with random quota allocation preferable to SSS with capping for scenarios that require hand-counting, or is capping good enough to beat allocated cardinal methods? Scaling seems to be superior in terms of quality for the following reason: