[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Dave Ketchum]

On Jul 8, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> I'm sorry, but aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh.
>
> I think that people on this list are smart, but this is pathetic. I  
> don't mean to be hard on Dave in particular. But why is it  
> impossible to get any two of us to agree on anything? I want to make  
> a list of systems which are
>
> 1. Commonly agreed to be better than approval.
>
We pretty much agree that approval is a step up from plurality - but  
most of us agree that we want a bigger step - but have trouble  
agreeing how to do that.

> 2. Commonly agreed to be simple for an average voter to feel that  
> they understand what's going on.

Voters should understand, but not necessarily be ready to do for  
themselves - leave that to whoever gets assigned to build the system.
>
> I am not asking each person who responds to choose the best or  
> simplest system according to them. I'm asking everyone to vote in  
> the poll and approve (rate higher than 0) all systems which meet  
> those two very low bars. Hopefully, the result will be a consensus.  
> It will almost certainly not be the two best, simplest systems by  
> any individual's personal reckoning.
>
> As to the specific comments:
>
> 2011/7/8 Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
> What I see:
> .     Condorcet - without mixing in Approval.
>
> You need some cycle-breaker. Implicit approval is the only order-N  
> tiebreaker I know; fundamentally simpler than any order-N²  
> tiebreaker like minimax. You don't have to call it approval if you  
> don't like the name.

When you look close:
.     If approval thinking could get involved when there is a cycle,  
we must consider whether this will affect voters' thinking.
.     Will not the approval thinking affect what is extracted from the  
ballots.

While there are many methods for resolving cycles, might we agree on:
.     Each cycle member would be CW if the other cycle members were  
set aside - why not demand that the x*x matrix that decided there was  
a cycle be THE source for deciding on which cycle member should be  
winner.
.     Remember that,  when we are electing such as a senator or  
governor, retrieving new information from the ballots is a complication.
>
> .     SODA - for trying, but seems too complex.
>
> I disagree, but I'm biased. I feel that "approve any number of  
> candidates or let your favorite candidate do it for you; most  
> approvals wins" is easy to understand. But I can understand if  
> people disagree, so I'm not criticizing this logic.

Your favorite candidate for, hopefully, getting elected is not  
necessarily one you would trust toward getting a good substitute  
elected.
>
> .     Reject Approval - too weak to compete.
>
> Worse than plurality????????

No - but we should be trying for something better.
>
> JQ

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110708/1137759e/attachment-0004.htm>