[EM] [CES #8848] Re: MAV on electowiki
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
abd at lomaxdesign.com
Thu Jun 20 10:31:13 PDT 2013
At 03:53 PM 6/19/2013, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>Could we do this on the wiki itself? That's what talk pages and BRD
>(Bold edit, Revert, Discuss) are for.
We could. However, it's another place for me to check. Looks like the
wiki is not set to allow email confirmation of changes. Configuration problem.
I see that I never authenticated my email for the wiki. I've just
requested a confirmation mail. It seems to be taking donkey's ages to
>Separately: I don't understand why you insist that "D" is an
>unapproved grade. I have never treated it as anything but just
>another grade. Obviously, any candidate who won with a "D" rating
>would have a very weak mandate.
Here is my thinking on that. Bucklin is an approval voting method,
allowing voters to categorize approval votes. They are *all* approval
votes and a drop to third rank in Bucklin was very common.
Now, if we are looking for a simple next system, would we make it
more complex than original Bucklin to vote? It's quite possible to
imagine only two levels. In fact, some actual systems had that, as I
recall. So why *four*?
Original Bucklin used a Range ballot, effectively. We now understand
Bucklin as a method where the ballot controls voting in successive
simmulated Approval elections, by following a descending approval
cutoff. Thus the ballot represents a rating profile, if sanely voted.
That terminates with bare minimum approval, which in common strategy
considered sound corresponds to the election utility expectation.
Nominally, 50% expected utility. So to translate the Bucklin votes to
utility measures, I use the conversion values of
1st rank: 4
2nd rank: 3
3rd rank: 2
no vote: 0
There is thus a missing rating, an *unapproved* rating, worse than
expected value. Rational approval strategy suggests voting against a
candidate so rated. However, there is information missing, obviously.
A single unapproved rating supplies the information.
And this is all convenient, because it corresponds to classic
grade-point average ratings, a scale of 0.0 - 4.0.
So if D is an approved grade, why has it been added in the absence of
any demonstrated need for such (it *could* be argued that two grades
are enough. I won't, because I want to be able to handle write-in
votes, plus an elevated approval for the preferred frontrunner, plus
more general approvals.
Then, with some variants, and possibly for what was are now calling
"tie-breaking," i.e, tied median grade, an unapproved but elevated
rating becomes potentially useful.
If one wants to consider D an approved rating, then, the conversions
1st rank: 6
2nd rank: 5
3rd rank: 4
4th rank: 3
no vote: 0
Or, speculatively, allowing the D rating to be a "slight disapproval,
willing to stand aside," or some self-contradictory position,
1st rank: 5
2nd rank: 4
3rd rank: 3
4th rank: 2
no vote: 0
It's a mess. Keep it simple. GPA ratings. 1 is below an "expected
result approval cutoff." It becomes useful for Condorcet analysis,
especially. And it can be used in a tiebreak. It can be used in study
of voting system results. It can be used in runoff nomination rules.
Or it can be unused because unexpressed on the ballot, simpler
system. Tiebreak can still be sum-of-votes, among majority-approved candidates.
More information about the Election-Methods