[EM] PSA/DMC etc. (was "Re: TSA/DMC, etc.")

[Araucaria Araucana]

I'm correcting what I assume was a typo in the subject line, and
replying to selected quotes below:

On 17 Mar 2005 at 14:23 PST, Forest Simmons wrote:
> Ted went on to say ...
>> If you still want to call it "ACC", you could use this analogy to
>> explain it: a long time back, I read an article which judged any movie
>> by comparing it to "The Truth about Cats and Dogs" (which I have never
>> seen).  The premise was that if it's better, it's a good movie ;-),
>> and if not, it's a bad movie.  Substitute candidates for movies,
>> mutatis mutandi ;-).
>
> Forest asks ...
>
> And use Gerald Ford as the standard of comparison?
>

:-) ... That would work.

>
> The winner by any of these equivalent formulations is equivalent to
> the Ranked Pairs (and Beatpath, too!) winner, when the defeat strength
> is measured by the approval of the pairwise winner in a pair.
>
> Forest:
>
> I'm not totally convinced of this, but I hope it is true.

Well, I'm not completely convinced either, but most examples I find
seem to bear it out.  I'll think some more about it.

>
> Forest:
>
> If we have grade ballots we might as well try to use the extra CR 
> information if it doesn't cause strategy problems.
>
> Did you get my email suggesting using dyadic approval to avoid bunching of
> candidates near the extreme ratings?

Had to go look ... I see the email now.

Okay, dyadics -- I see the basic idea, but I'd like to see an
implementation before I say more.  It might be fine for working groups
but may be too complex for public elections.

>
> Ted:
>
> One way to implement it could be by using extra candidates like the
> ACC (aka LPG).  You could have 10 CR 'extra candidates' just like the
> ACC, say with ratings from 100,90,...,10.
>
> Default rating for ranked candidates, if no CR candidate is ranked, is
> 100 points.  Default rating below the lowest ranked CR candidate is 0.
>
> Say CR100 is assigned 3rd place (or grade C)) -- anybody at or above
> CR100's rank gets 100 points.  If CR40 is ranked at 5th place (grade
> E), candidates in 4th and 5th place get 40 points.  If CR40 is the
> lowest ranked CR candidate, any 6th-place or lower-ranked candidates
> would get 0 points.
>
> Inconsistent CR candidate ranking (e.g.,CR10 ranked at 1st choice in
> example above) would be ignored.
>
> This could very well be too complex for voters, but do you have
> philosophical objections as well?
>
> Forest:
>
> Simplicity is part of philosophy :']
>
> Your idea is ingenious, and may lead somewhere interesting.

  [blush]

On further thought, probably too complex for public elections, but
I'll run it by a few people.

>
> I think using A to Z graded ballots with the approval cutoff fixed
> between letters M and N would be adequate and simpler, but thinking
> of other possibilities can lead to other interesting ideas, so keep
> forging ahead!
>

Not enough space on a ballot for 26 grades, I'm afraid.  Butterfly
ballots are bad enough ...

Ted
-- 
araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com