Jameson Quinn jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Sun Jun 30 20:13:53 PDT 2013

Abd proposed Bucklin//Score, which he dubbed "evaluative majority approval
voting". My first, and still my principal, response was: that's not bad,
and if you can build were a consensus behind that, I'll sign on. I'd still
like to see Abd respond to that ( and ideally commit to first mentioning a
consensus Bucklin proposal once per thread before discussing the relative
merits between Bucklin systems) before engaging with the specific
discussion below.

My basic response to EMAV specifically is: Bucklin is good and Score is
good, so it's not bad, but it's still in some sense the worst of both
worlds. Not as responsive or simple as Score, not as exaggeration or
chicken resistant as most Bucklin methods, it's just a compromise that will
make nobody really happy. Bucklin hybrids can work well;
Bucklin//Condorcet, for instance, is in many ways best of both, though its
counting complexity is a bit high for me. But if EMAV is better than MAV,
then Score is even better; while if EMAV is better than Score, then MAV is
even better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130630/3ee2ada7/attachment-0003.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list