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

[Jameson Quinn]

2012/9/7 Michael Ossipoff <email9648742 at gmail.com>

> > 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.
>

No. I just meant MJ, with all voters voting approval-style (max or min for
all candidates).


> 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 I just explained the tiebreaker in that popular proposal, as put forth
in the book Majority Judgment. You apparently had never even heard of that
tiebreaker, so I don't see why you think you're qualified to say anything
about MJ.

I could continue to point out how you're wrong in what follows. For
instance, you apparently think that "probabilistic SFR" means everyone
gives the higher grade. But it's basically a waste of time.

As a wise man once said: "The EM conduct-guidelines ask you to not repeat
claims that have been answered and criticized, unless you can answer the
criticisms of the claims." Until you understand that guideline, rather than
just parroting it, this is the last time I'll respond to you in this thread.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120907/5905a1d3/attachment-0004.htm>