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

Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 19:47:19 PDT 2012

```2012/9/6 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>

> 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's not tallying. Tallying means making a count. Three apples, not three
pounds of apple. 1,2,3; not 3,5,8.

In this case the tally would look like this:
Gandalf:
A: IIII     4
B: II      2
C:        0
D:        0
F: IIII     3

Saruman:
A: IIII       4
B:           0
C: III      3
D: III      3
F:          0

Gandalf's median is B (CMJ of 3.0); Saruman's is C (CMJ of 2.167).

Is that clear now?

>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120906/02e57a14/attachment-0003.htm>
```