[EM] [CES #8834] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
abd at lomaxdesign.com
Tue Jun 18 19:50:52 PDT 2013
At 02:42 PM 6/18/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>New running tally, including Andy Jennings's
>latest votes (which went out on only one of the
>lists). Current voting tallies in parentheses,
>ordered JQ/AL/RB/AJ/DSH/BG/BRG. Options have
>been placed in descending order, which I expect to be stable from here on.
>Abd: please vote on MAV, MSV, CAV, AAV, and CSV.
My votes are the second in each list.
Majority Approval Voting: (A/B/C/A/A/D/B) Median:
B, votes above: 3. PROBABLE WINNER.
Additive Approval Voting: (B/C/B/C/B/E/B) Median: B, votes above: 0
Descending Approval Threshold Voting:
(A/B-/B/C/C/F/A) Median B-; votes above B, 2.
Cumulative Approval Voting: (A/C/B/C/D/A/F) Median C; votes above: 3
Majority Support Voting: (B/D/C/A/C/D/B) Median C; votes above: 3
Instant Runoff Approval Voting: (B/A/F/C/F/F/C) Median C; votes above: 2
Cumulative Support Voting: (A/C/B/C/F/C/F) Median C; votes above: 2
>I am happy with how this went. There are still
>details we haven't come to consensus on such
>as the numbers of and labels for rating
>categories but I am comfortable with leaving
>those unspecified, and allowing each advocate to specify them if they want to.
>Abd: I understand that you favor the "runoff"
>terminology. However, the IRAV proposal lost
>convincingly. If you have any further issues to
>discuss, please pose them (along with your votes as requested above).
Well, I could have shifted the DAT vote to tie
with MAV.... However, the particular system is
DAT with a backup as needed to avoid a multiple
majority. MAV represents that. I'm still
uncomfortable with the *method*, i.e., with
dumping the principle of preponderance of the
votes in the case of a multiple majority, and we
have seen inadequate discussion of that./
>I would happily have submitted to the majority
>here on even a name I didn't personally like.
> I hope that, at least on these lists, we can
> begin to come together to use MAV as the
> representative Bucklin proposal, and stop
> pushing our own individual variants like "GMJ" or "ER-Bucklin".
I can appreciate the intention, but not the push.
The Approval Voting consensus arose rather
naturally, this seems to have been rushed. What's the hurry?
I see a place for using different names in
different contexts, and do not see that "one size fits all."
MAV -- I'm happy to use that name for a defined
method, and will leave the "grade" issue for
later -- sacrifices utility maximization for some
increased level of LnH protection. I *do* think
it's an interesting idea, but would greatly
prefer to resolve the problem with real runoffs,
*whenever* the votes show the lack of a clear majority *choice.*
More information about the Election-Methods