[EM] Sorry--One more revision of MMT

[C.Benham]

Mike,

I was a bit confused about this for a while, because your definition of 
MMT doesn't make clear that a "majority candidate set" may contain only 
one candidate.

Given that this uses 3-slot ballots, isn't it just (interpreting any 
above-Bottom rating as approval)  "Majority Approval//Top Ratings"?

*If no candidate is majority-approved elect the most top-rated 
candidate. Otherwise elect the most top-rated majority-approved candidate.*

But of course that fails Later-no-Harm, because it could be that if some 
voters vote A truncate then no candidate will have majority approval and 
A wins but if they vote A>B then B will have majority approval and the 
win will change to B.

Chris Benham


Mike Ossipoff wrote (5 Dec 2011):

Mutual-Majority-Top (MMT):

A set of candidates who are each rated above bottom by each member of the
same majority of the voters is a "majority candidate set".

If there are one or more majority candidate sets, then the winner is the
most top-rated candidate who is in a majority candidate set.

If there are no majority candidate sets, then the winner is the most
top-rated candidate.

[end of MMT definition]

The previous definition didn't allow for the fact that there can be 
overlapping
majorities of the voters.

MMT has the properties that I want (FBC, LNHa, ABE-non-failure, 3P), and 
avoids the
not-really-valid criticisms of Mono-Add-Plump failure and electing
C in Kevin's MMPO "bad"-example.

That also seems to be true of Forest's FBC/ABE-passing method, which seems
to act quite similarly to MMT.

MTAOC too, with the added advantage of optional unconditional middle-rating
support for a lesser-evil.

We're always seeking better methods, and I'd like to find out if there's 
a simple wording
that would allow voters in MMT to have the option of giving 
unconditional middle-rating
support. But if I find that, I won't make it a replacement for the 
current MMT. I'll give
it a different name.

Likewise, it would be interesting if MTAOC, or something like it, could 
be written with
a complete description in a short paragraph (though there's nothing 
wrong with
its full definition being a computer program, while having a brief 
verbal description).

Those two goals probably amount to about the same thing.

Mike Ossipoff