[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 
show up....

>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 
become different:

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 mailing list