[EM] Jameson MJ. Alternative IC rule? ICT's main problem.

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Jameson--

You said that suckers are more easily taken advantage of in the methods that I propose (Approval, Approval with conditional voting options, and 
MTAOC and MCAOC, and maybe ABucklin with the kinds of conditionality that I've proposed).

For one thing, I don't propose sucker-voting with any voting system. For another thing, how would you take advantage of a sucker in AOC,
MMT, GMAT, MTAOC or MCAOC?

I suppose that, in the ABE, you could say that an A voter who doesn't make his help for B conditional is a sucker. You could take advantage of him.

But I don't advocate sucker-voting.

If you want to say that those methods have a strategy problem, then you need to say what strategy problem you think it has. Then you need
to tell why you think so.

Alternative IC rule?

Would it be as good, or sometimes better, to say that x is not beaten by y if the number of ballots ranking y over x is not greater than the
number ranking x over y plus the number ranking x and y equal-top; and that x wins if no one beats hir?

It seems to me that, most likely, ICT's main problem is innocent truncation. Non-strategically-intended truncation. One advantage that I always
pointed out for wv Condorcet was that it does a good job of avoiding that particular problem. So maybe Improved Condorcet, completed in a wv
sort of way, with one of the conditionality-by-mutuality systems that I've proposed, would be better than ICT for that reason. That would be
my reason for chooseing Improved-Condorcet-Winning-votes-Optional-Conditional (ICWOC) instead of ICT.

Conditionality of the type used in MMT or GMAT could perhaps be used instead, in which case I'd call the method ICWC, because, with those
kinds of conditionality, the conditionality isn't optional.

As you know, changes or procedures that get rid of a problem tend to bring with them a different problem. Conditionality doesn't seem to do that.
It avoids problems, without bringing one.

I said that I wouldn't propose ABucklin or its conditional versions because AERLO is needed to alleviate its strategic uncertainty. But, though they wouldn't
get rid of that problem, the conditionalities that I've proposed would do much to alleviate it. So maybe conditional ABucklin would be a good method,
a good way to get the greater expressivity of unlimited ranking. I've told here how ABucklin could be used with MTAOC style conditionality, in which
case I'd call it AOCBucklin. It could also be used with MMT or GMAT condititionality, in which case I'd call it ACBucklin, because the conditionality wouldn't
be optional.

With MTAOC style conditionality, not only is the conditionality optional, but it's optional by candidate. That's the kind of conditionality that I'd most
likely propose.

Mike Ossipoff

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120207/3d5c9f2e/attachment-0003.htm>