[EM] Joe's ballot--I accidentally missed posting it.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Sorry, I accidentally missed Joe's ballot when I gathered the ballots
for posting and printing-out. That means that I didn't count it either,
since I counted from my printout.

But Joe's ballot further increases the magnitude of Approval's win.
Approval's main rivals were some pairwise-count methods--Cloneproof SSD,
ordinary SSD, RP(wv), and RP(m). Joe's ballot increases the amount
by which Approval beats those methods.

Since Joe didn't designate a method, Manual is the default designation,
and his ballot directly increases the final Approval score of Approval,
but not of the pairwise-count methods. Likewise, that ballot
further helps Approval against the pairwise count methods in the
Approval count and in all the pairwise-counts.

So Approval won even more soundly than it had initially seemed.

It must be obvious that I'd have no motive to intentionally not count
& not post a ballot that counts in favor of Approval against Margins.
Besides, Rob LG had a copy of the ballot too, and so it wouldn't have
been possible to successfully leave it out, even if I'd wanted to.
Lastly, if I were going to intentionally omit a ballot, I wouldn't
state the correct number of ballots (nine).

Here's Joe's ballot--My apologies, Joe, for missing it when I was
gathering the ballots to post & count:

To: Mike Ossipoff and Rob LeGrand (nkklrp at hotmail.com and 
honky98 at aggies.org)

Dear Mike and Rob,

Here is the information equivalent to my filling out the forms for each of 
your
two ballots (for ‘public-proposal' and for ‘pure-merit').

In each case, I list just my approved (Approval box checked) methods, in 
rank
order (highest to lowest), each with its rating (per CR; CR here is taken 
for
all purposes to be high-res, using the centile scale 0-100).  All other
ballot-listed methods are disapproved (not checked), with common bottom 
rank,
and with rating = 0.  (These other methods are all viewed as either no real
improvement at all over the present Lone-Mark ‘plurality' method, or as too
complicated and problematic to justify their use - to myself or to the 
public or
both.)

Besides some listed systems, I also write in two candidate methods, termed 
FSA
and PAR.

FSA is  a simple version of Forest Simmons' ‘Five-slot Approval'.  This 
version
allows grades A,B,C,D,F.   For scoring: grades A,B,C are automatically taken 
as
‘Approved' (alias ‘pass', =1) and grades D,F are automatically taken as
‘Disapproved' (alias ‘fail', = 0).   In intended operation, the method also
reports candidates' overall ‘expressive' scores, namely their grade- point
averages - found by taking (as usual): A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0.

PAR - ‘parallel approval/ratings' is in effect the method used in your 
balloting
here (leaving aside the ranking info, which anyhow for each ballot is 
implied by
the rating info).   For each method the voter indicates approval or 
disapproval,
and also gives a (CR) rating.  Each candidate receives overall 
‘instrumental'
and ‘expressive' scores, found respectively as approval proportion and as
average rating.


APPROVED  ‘PUBLIC-PROPOSAL'  METHODS  -  EACH  WITH  RATING  (0-100)


	FSA		100
	CR 		 90
	Approval	 80
	PAR		 60


APPROVED  ‘PURE-MERIT'  METHODS   -  EACH  WITH  RATING  (0-100)

	PAR		100
	FSA		 90
	CR		 80
	Approval	 70

COMMENT.  Ordered by complex to simple, or by decreasing expressivity, 
methods
are PAR, FSA, CR, Approval.  For ordinary voters, PAR is likely notably more
complex or error-prone than the other three.  CR is the simplest truly
expressive method, but is subject to ‘strategic collapse' - expressive 
strategy
obstructed by or collapsing to instrumental strategy.


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com