[EM] IRV variant

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/11/6 MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>

>
>
> Hi Forest--
>
> What made me like IRV (= whole) was that, while not failing in the
> Approval bad-example,
> it meets (or so I thought) FBC, 1CM, SDSC, 3P and UP.
>
> (1CM is a milder version of SDSC. UP is a stronger version of 3P)
>
> Then, I had to abandon IRV (= whole), when Kevin showed that it fails FBC.
>
> He showed an example in which half of a certain candidate's voters
> equal-top-ranked a
> certain needed compromise, but the other half didn't. In order for the
> compromise to
> get enough votes, it was necessary for the equal-ranking voters to,
> instead, downrank
> their favorite, to immediately eliminate hir.
>
> Does the IRV variant that you describe meet FBC?
>

I don't know about Forest's IRV variant, but my 321 voting (based on
David's IRV3/Approval3, but with equal ranking) does.


>
> I feel that the U.S. voters are so lesser-of-2-evils dominated that FBC is
> absolutely
> necessary for our public elections.
>
> I've watched someone vote in a rank-balloting presidential mock election.
> Though she
> prefers Nader's policies to those of the Democrats, she ranked all of the
> Democrats
> over Nader.
>
> FBC is essential for public elections.
>
> My current favorite is MDD, ER-Bucklin (whole)   (where ER-Bucklin(whole)
> is defined
> as in the electowicki).
>
>
This is very similar to Majority Judgment. The advantages of the latter are:
1. There's a book about it.
2. There's a wikipedia article about it.
3. Balinski and Laraki (the inventors) make a good argument that methods
like this should use words, not numbers, as rating categories, to encourage
a common understanding of meanings among voters; and that this will improve
results.


> It's the Cadillac of FBC methods.
>
> Is there an FBC-complying method meets UP and SDSC and that does better by
> other criteria?
>
> Is there an FBC-complying method that doesn't fail in the Approval
> bad-example?
>
>
SODA voting. As I've said about 5 times already.


> ...and maybe that also meets at least 1CM and 3P.
>

Not exactly, but I'd argue it fulfills the spirit of those criteria.



>
>
>
> I call ER-Bucklin (whole) "ABucklin".
>
> So I call its MDD version "MDD, ABucklin".
>
> I've polled two people so far, and the winner so far (among Approval, MTA,
> MDDA and ABucklin) is
> MTA.
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111106/0df8afb6/attachment-0004.htm>