[EM] Participation criterion: a thought

[Forest Simmons]

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on this one.

I agree with all of your comments.

However, among three slot methods MCA might be easier to sell.

I will gladly go with the one that is most acceptable to the public.

Forest

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Gervase Lam wrote:

> > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:13:52 +0200 (CEST)
> > From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Kevin=20Venzke?= <stepjak at yahoo.fr>
> > Subject: Re: [EM] Participation criterion: a thought
>
> > For the last couple of weeks I've been trying to come up with the
> > smallest possible modification to Approval that would still meet
> > Participation, but I still haven't got anything.
> >
> > Can anyone come up with anything here?
>
> 3-level Cardinal Ratings? :-)  Consistency and Participation compliant
> whereas MCA isn't!  Add to that Later-No-Harm?
>
> At the moment, I think 3-level CR is better than MCA.  Sure, 3-level CR
> has got the same problem as any another Cardinal Ratings method in that
> the generally best strategy is to vote only at the extremes of the
> Cardinal Ratings scale.  But, as Forest said when describing Max Power
> "Cardinal Ratings", if the voters want to vote at the extremes, let them.
>
> The same thing could also be said about MCA.  MCA is a Median Rating
> method and Median Rating methods have the same voting extreme problem.
>
> I think you discovered using random ballots and found that the middle slot
> in MCA "is almost never used.  It is used when a candidate's worth
> [utility] happens to equal the mean worth."  Well, could the same thing be
> said about 3-level CR?
>
> Mike Ossipoff suggested 3-level CR.  In the same thread he and Alex Small
> had a discussion about whether there was any point in using the middle
> slot in 3-level CR.  I think it was early this year?
>
> I was just wondering whether the 'classic' Approval strategy could be
> adapted to 3-level CR.
>
> (1) Give the top slot to the best front runner together with the other
> runners who you think are better than this front runner?
> (2) Give the bottom slot to the worst front runner together with the other
> runners who you think are worst than this front runner?
> (3) Put the remaining runners into the middle slot?
>
> I think the only problem might be that the front runner won't get as much
> gain away from the runners in the middle slot in comparison with Approval.
>  But, do you care?  Isn't your primary aim to get as much distance between
> your favoured front runner and your unfavoured front runner?
>
> Thanks,
> Gervase.
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>