[EM] MJ: Worse Chicken Dilemma than Approval or Score, elaborate bylaws, computation-intensive count.

[Michael Ossipoff]

Jameson:

I'd said:

>> With Score, you add each ballot's rating of X to X's total.
>>
>> With MJ, if one or two newly-counted ballots rate X above hir current
>> median, then you must raise X's MJ score to hir rating on the ballot
>> with the lowest X-rating above X's median (or maybe to the mean of two
>> such ballots?).
>>
>> That means you have to go through the ballots again, to find the one
>> with the lowest X-rating above X's median.   ...unless you've sorted
>> all of the ballots, by their ratings, for each candidate.
>>
>> You don't think that's a lot more computation-intensive than Score? (see
>> above).
>>
> Yes, but that's totally the wrong way to do it. You don't keep a running
> track of the median as you count, you simply tally each rating for each
> candidate.

But that sounds more like the definition of Score. Tallying, for each
candidate, each ballot's rating of that candidate.

That will give the candidates' totals in Score, but it won't find the
medians of their ratings, as needed for MJ.

I didn't say that it would be necessary to keep running track of the
medians as you process each ballot  I said that, if you prefer, you
could also, in advance, for each candidate, sort the ballots by their
ratings.

> (Note that part of the definition of MJ is that you use a limited
> number of non-numeric ratings, so it's more like A-F than 100-0; a
> manageable number of tallies.)

That doesn't speak to the question of whether MJ is as easily-counted
as Score. It's just a statement of the well-established fact that
fewer available ratings means easier count.

So then, are you saying that MJ's increased count-work can be
alleviated by reducng the number of ratings available to
voters--limiting voters to 6 rating-levels to alleviate MJ's greater
need for count-work?

> Once you have the tallies

Tallies of what? Gotten how? If you're referring to a specific count
procedure, specify it.

> , computing the
> median (and the MJ or CMJ tiebreakers) is easy. And tallying is easier, less
> error-prone, and more informative, than a running total as in Score.

Mike Ossipoff