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

Michael Ossipoff email9648742 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 7 16:02:19 PDT 2012

> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com> wrote:
> Two-level MJ is approval, because of the tiebreaker.
> Example: Say A gets 52% approval and B gets 57%. Both will have a median of
> "approved". After removing 4% "approved" votes from each

Whoa. I'm guessing that removing 4% is the result of some bylaw. Ok.

>, A's median will
> drop to "unapproved", and B will win.
> So if probabilistic SFR works in approval, it works in two-level MJ.

So you're saying that if you devise a ridiculously elaborate
implementation of Approval, and call it a version of MJ, then you can
say that there is an MJ version that acts identically to Approval,
because it is Approval. :-)

> And it
> also works in pure-100%-strategic MJ.

You haven't defined "pure-100% strategic MJ". Is that yet another
version of MJ? It would seem that MJ versions abound.

Without knowing the count rules of the "pure-100% strategic MJ"
version, it isn't possible to comment on what does or doesn't work, in
that version of MJ.

In any case, my initial statements, and my subsequent comments, have
only been about the MJ that is a popular proposal.

But I've showed why SFR doesn't work in the MJ version that gives to
each candidate an MJ score equal to the median of the voters' ratings
of hir. That's the only MJ version that I'm interested in discussing,
because it's the version that is a popular proposal.

> And also for a divided majority, it
> works to use probabilistic SFR using grades of min and min+1.

I refer you to my recent previous postings in which I told you why
that isn't so. I showed that, with a divided {A,B} majority, if the A
voters give B min+1, the the B voters, by defecting and giving 0 to A,
automatically win.

> Also, the first time in this thread that I said CMJ, I linked to the
> electowiki page which describes it. As I've told you to do many times.
> Here's the link again: http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=CMJ

That's nice. My comments are about the MJ that is a popular proposal,
as was my initial posted statement.
> If you continue to insist on the same points, without actually listening, I
> won't respond.

I refer you to my previous posts. They answer your questions.

But I'll repeat this: I've explained that, if you want to say that
some strategy will achieve, in MJ, the SFR benefit that is possible in
Score and Approval, then you need to actually specify that strategy.
You haven't proposed a strategy by which that can be accomplished in
MJ, and I accept your implication, thereby, that you don't have one.

Mike Ossipoff

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list