[EM] [CES #8791] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Premature, in my opinion. Rather, *we have not developed a consensus, 
to my knowledge, on this method as a second reform.* We should, my 
opinion, have a settled consensus on the exact method, as step two, 
before insisting on the name. The name should indeed have "approval" 
in the name. FairVote successfully piggy-backed on "runoff voting" 
with IRV, and the problem was that they made false promises. Bucklin 
*actually finds majorities*, under some conditions, probably more 
often than does IRV, for reasons I've documented.

"Instant runoff approval" *actually describes the method.* DAT 
describes the voting strategy.

Cumulative Approval also describes it.

When we have a consensus on the method, we can formally collect names 
and set up an actual poll, the tools exist, or we can delegate the 
choice by any of various methods.

At 02:03 PM 6/17/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>New running tally. Current voting tallies in parentheses, ordered 
>JQ/AL/RB/AJ/DSH/BG. Note the new option for Additive Approval 
>Voting, which could be a winner if Abd, Andy, and Ben like it 
>enough. Current contenders for best are in bold.
>
>Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C/F/F) Median C/F.
>
>Descending Approval Threshold Voting: (A/B-/B/C/C/F) Median B-/C.
>
>Majority Approval Voting: (A/?/C/A/A/D) Median A/C
>
>Majority Support Voting: (B/?/C/A/C/D) Median C
>
>Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/?/B/?/D/A) Median B/D
>
>Additive Approval Voting: (B/?/B/?/B/?) Median B/?
>
>Cumulative Support Voting: (A/?/B/?/F/C) Median C/?
>
>Jameson