[EM] Majority-Judgement. Condorcet.

Ted Stern araucaria.araucana at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 17:17:44 PST 2012

On 03 Feb 2012 16:07:59 -0800, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> 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.

Can anyone explain how Majority Judgment differs in practice from
Bucklin with equal ratings allowed?  AKA Fallback Approval?  Or
one of the many versions of Majority Choice Approval (another vague
name, IMO)?

> 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.

And you can delete even more code if it is just ER-Bucklin.

araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list