[EM] Forest--FBC compliance

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

But wouldn't that lose the method's  FBC compliance? For FBC compliance, if
there are N candidates ranked over a particular candidate, then it's
necessary to give a vote to hat candidate in the (N+1)th round, and not
before.

Forest replies...

I think you are confusing FBC compliance with monotonicity compliance.

I reply:

No. I'm talking about FBC. If you move your favorite up to 1st place where  
your compromise is, and if each Bucklin round gives votes to everyone at the 
the next rank position, then you're causing your 3rd choice to get a vote 
from you one round sooner. That could cause him to take victory from your 
compromise. If so, then you worsened your result by not burying your 
favorite.

The way to avoid that in ERBucklin(whole) is:

A candidate who has N candidates ranked over him on your ballot receives a 
vote from you in the (N+1)th Bucklin round.

You continued:

With rankings you need the place holders (for monotonicity)

I reply:

The rule that I described above is needed for FBC compliance.

You continued:

but for ratings the empty slots hold the places.

I reply:

Yes, if Bucklin's rule is written to say that a candidate in the Nth slot 
receives a vote in the Nth round, and the voter understands that he must 
leave ampty slots when he moves his favorite up to 1st place, with his 
compromise--if he doesn't want to risk that electing someone less-liked.

That confirms my statement that ratings are more difficult to use. That 
voter has to know to leave empty slots to protect against giving the 
election to someone less liked than the compromise.

With rankings, and the N+1 rule, he just can be assured that he never has 
reason to bury his favorite.

You and another person told of ways in which rating is easier than ranking, 
when there are lots of candidates.

But wouldn't it be just as easy to say: I like Smith about as much as Jones, 
so why don't I rank him with the same rank number that I gave to Jones. 
Sure, then he has to look up what he gave to Jones, whereas with ratings, he 
just has to rate each one independently from 0 to 100.

Even if that's easier, it's more complicated to propose. You've got to 
exaplain why you're using ratings, and whether the method is really a rank 
method, or whether it's Range Voting. Use it for voting in a university when 
a department there is voting in meetings. But proposals to the public should 
be simple.

To use something that Rob said, the problem of having MDDA or SSD being used 
in public elections, using rank ballots, and having the problem that ranking 
lots of candidates requires writing down one's ranking in advance, or a 
screen that has us dragging candidates to positions in a ranking, 
etc.--That's a problem that I'd be delighted to have, regarding it from the 
present perspective.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/