More re: Mitigation

[Mike Ossipoff]

In Re-Voting-Based-on-Favorite-Method, the 4th option that I
listed wouldn't be very useful, might not help at all. That's
the one where the voter would indicate that s/he wants to drop
from hir ranking anyone who is majority-rejected unless everyone
is majority-rejected, and anyone who is beaten, unless everyone
is beaten.

It would be better for that voter to, instead, use the
1st option, indicating that s/he wants to move to 1st place
the winner chosen by Criterion-Mitigated-IRO, or 
Criterion-Mitigated-Plurality. Of Course selecting Condorcet
for that option would be better. 

***

While I'm at it, I should officially suggest this, in relation
to the mitigation methods, since it's similar. It's 
related to my suggestion about the Presidential method by 2
methods:

When people can't agree on which rank-balloting count rule to
use, then the rankings should be counted by all the methods,
and the pairwise results published, and a 2nd election held
between the winners by all the proposed methods. I'd suggest
Approval for that 2nd election, since any rank-balloting
method would seem to favor one of the method proposals,
and because I believe that Approval is better than the
worst rank-balloting count method.

And, as Don suggested, the 1st balloting could allow people
to vote separate rankings for use with the various rank-balloting
count methods.

Since the mitigations that I've suggested are also for situations
where everyne doesn't agree on what method would be best,
this proposal here belongs classified with mitigation as
a solution for that kind of situtation, even though it isn't
really a mitigation to be used with a single bad method. I
call it the Combined Method.

Mike


--