[EM] Lomax reply, 3/15/12

MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 15 14:32:29 PDT 2012

At 03:53 PM 3/14/2012, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

Remember that I don't suggest AOC as a first proposal. I suggest only plain
Approval as a first proposal.

People are debating about the ideally best complicated methods. Instead, we should
just, for now, be working to enact Approval. The non-hand-countable methods can wait.
The difficultly-described methods can wait too.

> >I admit that that is a mess--when my
> >optional-conditionality-by-mutuality algorithm definition
> >is in three widely-separated postings. At least I should re-post the
> >corrected pseudocode in
> >one posting. Should have already done that before now. Will within 
> a few days.
>While there may be value for this in terms of working on improved
>methods, as to theory, as to possible public implementations, not
>method that is so complex to explain has a prayer of seeing
>application outside of specialized societies where they are willing
>to tolerate that.

Show someone the Approval bad-example, and ask them if they'd like to be able
to give an approval that is conditional upon reciprocity. If they were an A voter,
would they like to give to B an approval that doesn't count unless the B voters approve
A as much as vice-versa?  ...doesn't count unless the B voters give to A as many approvals as they get
from the A voters? 

How complicated is that?

GMAT and MMT are defined in posts that have those names in their subject lines. 
In the subject line, MMT is written out as Mutual-Majority-Top. GMAT is probably written out
as Greatest-Mutual-Approval-Top. But it's also abbreviated GMAT.
If what I've said above isn't detailed enough, and they ask for more detail, then
I tell them what you quoted below:

>It can be said in more detail, but a little more wordily:
>Call a ballot's unconditionally-approved candidates its "favorites".
>A ballot on which C is favorite is called a C-favorite ballot.
Interrupting the description, let me reply to this:

You have not defined "unconditionally approved."


I've defined "conditionally approved". "Unconditionally approved" means "approved
without being conditionally approved". In other words, it means that the approval
is given without condition. 

You continued:

 How is that shown on 
the ballot? I could guess, but I'd rather not!


No need to guess:

An approval ballot could have a square box to the left of each candidate's name.

The instruction at the top of the ballot would say: 

"Approve any one or more candidates
by checking the box to the left of their name." There would be an arrow pointing to the top
of the boxes column.

There would also be another square box to the right of the candidate's name.
An instruction above would say: 

"To make an approval for a candidate conditional, mark the box to the right of the
candidate's name". There would be an arrow pointing to the top of that box-column.

There would be a simple and brief page, maybe attached to the ballot, maybe handed out by
poll-managers, explaining what it means to make an approval conditional. It would, I expect,
just say that conditionality means that the approval is counted only if it is reciprocated.
Maybe the Approval bad-example would be shown on that page, with a briefly worded explanation
of why some would want to give a conditional approval.

No, it doesn't dilute the information you give. It lets you give more information. In the
Approval bad-example, it pretty much ensures that the CW, A, wins.

Must quit for the time being.

To be continued...

Mike Ossipoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120315/2d66f024/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list