[EM] Nested Sequential Conditionality didn't seem useful. CL Disqualification MMPO (CLDMMPO)

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

 Because ABucklin is Approval that gives its votes stepwise, it was natural to consider
a Conditional Approval that takes away votes stepwise. That's what I referred to yesterday
as nested sequential conditionality. 

It seemed to make sense, and was worthwhile to check out, but, upon examination,
there didn't seem to be much point in it. There didn't seem to be significant improvement
over ordinary Conditional Approval.

By the way, for MMPO, why not start by disqualifying Condorcet losers?

Or maybe do the tied-at-top version (that meets Kevin's criterion) of Condorcet, and complete it with MMPO.

The former of those two suggestions makes for a briefer-defined method, which
I'd call Condorcet Loser Disqualification MMPO (CLDMMPO). 

That's the version of MMPO that I'll count in the poll's rank ballotings (unlimited and 3-slot), if there is enough participation for it to
be a poll.

There's enough interest in 3-slot methods at EM to justify a separate 3-slot balloting, and IRV3/AV3 has
been discussed here enough to justify a special balloting for it too.

In general, of course when I proposed this poll, I never intended that it should be entirely up to
me how it's conducted, what the ballotings will be, etc. As I said, such decisions are collective
matters.

I'll do a Voter's Choice count, but, that just means that I'm doing a count that I like, as of course
can anyone.

And the various options that I offer for voting in the Approval election are, of course _options_.

Mike Ossipoff

 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120109/aab744ae/attachment-0003.htm>