[EM] [CES #8834] Upper-Bucklin naming (was: Median systems, branding....)

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

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.*