[EM] MJ SFR (preliminary). Score vs Approval, based on considerations discussed.

[Michael Ossipoff]

Ted:

You said:

> Majority Judgment (MJ) and Continuous Majority Judgment (CMJ) are both
> Median Ratings methods.

No sh*t !   :-)    ...But wait, isn't that explicit in their definition?

> As is ER-Bucklin(whole).  You're probably
> most familiar with the latter, so let me start there.  I will put
> ER-Bucklin into the same formulation as MJ and CMJ

Ok. I've heard the claim that MJ is ER-Bucklin. Maybe it's true. MJ
would probably be much easier to count than ER-Bucklin. But what would
their equivalence (if valid) mean, in practical terms? There aren't
many people advocating ER-Bucklin. So the equivalence, if valid, isn't
a powerful argument for MJ.

>  so you understand
> the terms,

I assure you that it isn't hard to make terms understandable. All
that's necessary is to define them clearly.

You seem to contradict yourself, saying at one point that MJ is
ER-Bucklin, and, at another point, that MJ will often give the same
result as ER-Buckliln.

You've supplied additional confirmation for the conclusion that MJ's
(and CMJ's) tiebreaking bylaws are elaborate, complicated, and wordy.

MJ and CMJ are so elaborately, wordily, defined that few people would
be willing to listen to their definitions.

> In many cases, MJ, CMJ and ER-Bucklin will choose the same winner.

Whoa. You earlier said that MJ _is_ ER-Bucklin.

Which is it? Is MJ the same as (equivalent to) ER-Bucklin, or is it
something different from ER-Bucklin that will, in many cases (but not
always), choose the same answer?

But, in any case, what does it matter, since few advocate Bucklin anyway?

If you want to compare the merits of MJ to that of Score, then compare
what MJ does to what Score does. Compare the strategy situation in MJ
to that in Score. That's what the previous discussion has been about.

> My only comment about this is that, since your quoting style is
> non-standard

In the posting to which you were replying, I quoted in the standard
style, using ">" and ">>" for previous text.

>, I really wish you'd provide a glossary of abbreviations
> somewhere in your message, either inline, using standard
> first-reference style, or at the end of your message.
>
> For example, which Chris are you referring to (Benham?)

Good guess! Is there another "Chris" who has been a regular poster
here, at any time during my current duration of membership at EM?

Or were you referring to Kristofer, who has never, so far as I'm
aware, been referred to here as "Chris"?

>, what does ICT
> stand for, and where is ICT defined?

For about the hundredth time, ICT stands for Improved-Condorcet-Top.
Kevin Venzke defined ICA a long time ago, to stand for
Improved-Condorcet-Approval. Improved-Condorcet-Top is the same,
except that completion is by top-count instead of Approval-count.

Improved Condorcet is hardly a new term here.

Here is a definition of Symmetrical ICT, which I prefer to ordinary ICT:

(X>Y) means the number of ballots ranking X over Y
(Y>X) means the number of ballots ranking Y over X.
(X=Y)T means the number of ballots ranking X and Y in 1st place.
(X=Y)B means the number of ballots ranking X and Y at bottom
....(not ranking X or Y over anything)

X beats Y iff (X>Y) + (X=Y)B > (Y>X) + (X=Y)T

1. If one candidate beats everyone else, then s/he wins.

2. If everyone or no one is unbeaten, then the winner is the candidate
ranked in 1st place on the most ballots.

3. If some, but not all, candidates are unbeaten, then the winner is
the unbeaten candidate ranked in 1st place on the most ballots.

[end of Symmetrical ICT definition]

I've posted, at EM, pseudocode for a Symmetrical ICT count program.

I've also posted it at minguo, where it can be found among the recent
posts, at the USA Realm.

> By the way, you needn't answer any of my comments

You're too kind.

You're hearby permitted to not answer this posting.


Mike Ossipoff