[EM] Majority-Judgement. Condorcet.

Kevin Venzke stepjak at yahoo.fr
Fri Feb 3 16:07:59 PST 2012

Personally I don't understand why one would want to spend time on a method that you have to defend by saying
"it might work anyway," even if as built the incentives are wrong.
I like the idea of being able to test things, so I may be biased here.
It's taking a shot in the dark. How fantastic must this method be, for that to seem like a good idea? It's hard to
believe one couldn't go back and work out something that more reliably does whatever you were going for.
Also, if MJ is a serious proposal it should be called "median rating" and use the Bucklin tiebreaker. You'd have
a name that means something and a tiebreaker that isn't a pain to solve.At the top rating (the one we all agree
might matter) the rules aren't even different.
The name is so bad. Imagine you hear that on the news and are trying to figure out what it means. "Majority"
doesn't tell you that much (IRV already does majorities and they didn't even need to put it in the name) and
"judgment" refers to what? The voting. They're calling it "judgment" though. Puke. So dramatic and it doesn't
even say anything.
The tie-breaker is the same thing really. It sounds neat and fair to pull out median votes one by one, but in
practice that isn't the methodology, you really should use math. Try coding MJ and then see how much code you
could delete, how much less thought it would've taken you, if you just wanted the Bucklin tiebreaker instead.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120204/b78ccd79/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list