[EM] Approval bad example

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:
 
> Here's the definition of MDD,TR:
>
> 3-slot method: Top, Middle, Bottom (unmarked)
>
> Disqualify any candidate(s) having a majority pairwise defeat.
>
> The winner is the un-disqualified candidate with the most top ratings.

(If all candidates are disqualified, then elect the candidate with the most
top and middle ratings)

>
> [end of MDD,TR definition]

(I added the above rule in parentheses after I read Chris's message below)

Chris replies:
  
This definition isn't complete. As it is, it isn't decisive because it's 
possible
that *all* the candidates can be disqualified.  You need to specify that if
all the candidates have a majority-strength defeat then none of them are
disqualified.

[endquote]

Quite so. Thanks for pointing that out.

If all candidates are disqualified, then elect the one with most top and
middle ratings.

I'm going to add that to the above definition that you quoted, in parentheses.

Chris wrote:
 
I'm not a fan of this method for reasons I may elaborate on in a later post.
It has a strong random-fill incentive

[endquote]

There are worse problems than random-fill incentive. Like when mutually-antagonistic 
factions sharing common interest have to be afraid to vote for eachother's candidates
because the win can be had by defection.

Chris continued:

, and fails the Plurality

[endquote]

The Approval bad-example says something about Plurality.  Criticizing the election of A in
that example, because of Plurality, implies an assumption that B has more approvals than A
because B is better-liked than A. But it might just be because the A voters are co-operative
and responsible, and the B voters are exploitive defectors.

Chris continued:

and Mono-add-
Plump criteria.

[endquote]

Maybe that could be used by status-quo defenders, to discredit the MDDTR with the public.

Maybe polling will answer that question.

I believe that Chris said that MTA and MCA meet Mono-Add-Plump.

But couldn't an opponent write a scathing denouncement of MTA or MCA because of
a failure of Mono-Add-Top or Participation?

How many of those do SMDTR and IBIFA meet?

Mike Ossipoff

(Right now I'm using reading the list e-mail at its website, and copying what I reply to, and
pasting it into e-mail. Hence the lack of " >" in my replies. I'm going to find out how to
start getting the list e-mail at my inbox. In the meantime, I've just found out that clicking
on a poster's name might send a propoerly " >"ed reply to the list.)